Why does a mohel suck the blood after circumcision?
This practice is part of the ritual of circumcision and it is called "Metzitza".
The source for Metzitza at a Brit is from the Talmud1 and is stated as the practiced law in the Code of Jewish Law.2
It is explained that drawing out blood prevents the blood from clotting and coagulating under the skin, which may result in inflammation and swelling.
The Code of Jewish Law does not explicitly mention how Metzitzah is to be performed. There is actually great debate amongst the Rabbis (today, as well as throughout the ages) regarding the details of Metzitza. As a result, some Mohelim use a tube, and some do it by mouth. Either way, to prevent possible transmission of diseases or infection, it is customary for the Mohel to cleanse his mouth with a disinfectant before Metzitza or before the Brit.
Footnotes
1. Talmud tractate Shabbat 133B
2. Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah Hilchot Brit 264:3
I hope the send the mohel to prison.
For what? Anyone who has had chicken pox carries the herpes simplex virus. I might catch grief for this but I had a reform Mohel for my son's Bris. He was also a pediatrician and did an excellent job.Because he contacts the wounded genitals with his mouth and lips. It is a high risk practice (not the brith, just the sucking of a drop of blood with the mouth) and it should be outlawed.
There is another thread about this somewhere on JTF which contains some good information if I remember correctly.
Only a small subset of people do this part of the ritual as it is not a necessary part of the circumcision. A glass tube or just gauze can be used instead.
It was believed in ancient times that the suction of blood away from the wound would contribute toward healing and prevent complications and infection. Let's be mature adults and see "metzitza b'peh" for what it is - a medical procedure. I admit that at times I thought of this as "inappropriate" in some way, but I think only a sick mind really thinks there is something untoward about this - Medical procedures are not and cannot be "untoward." However, we now know that it is not necessary to be done in that format as we have other ways of removing the blood, and likewise we found out that there are actual risks involved with doing it. IMO anyone who allows the metzitza bpeh to be done to their child is criminally insane, given what we know and what the risks are. There is absolutely no reason to put a baby at risk.
Muman, it doesn't matter how old something is. It was thought to prevent infection. But now we know it can cause a certain type of infection that could be deadly. As such, there are other ways of doing it (glass tube or gauze), and many poskim say it is not an essential part of the Bris, just a health precaution. If it truly was a health precaution, it would be essential to do it, for the baby's sake, but actually it's a health risk. So it's essential not to do it!
And as per your style, he was asking about metzitza b'peh, and you put up an article about METZIZTAH, defending it as 3000 year old custom. How about just address what he's asking about so that you do not conflate the issues?
For what? Anyone who has had chicken pox carries the herpes simplex virus. I might catch grief for this but I had a reform Mohel for my son's Bris. He was also a pediatrician and did an excellent job.
I don't want to go into details but we have all heard the reports of the newborn dying from Herpes simplex virus transmitted by oral suction from the Mohel. Do all Hassidic sects practice this? Do non Hassidim practice this? This disgusts me on more levels than I can describe.
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/General+News/163298/AUDIO%3A-Michael-Savege-Slams-Metzitzah-B%27Peh-And-Orthodox-Jews.html
Those reports were reported wrong, they have been changes yett the "news" still remains.
And I am listening to this Savage, what a self-hating baal geiva.
What was reported wrong?
you mean the rabbi "muh diked" the baby boy?
:::D
לך לעזאזל
Seems like some people have issues with the entire Circumcision command...
This story is really nothing to laugh at though. No doubt the anti-circumcision forces will latch onto this and make it harder (or illegal) for us to perform the Brit on future generations.
I notice how some of these people scream "Death to the Jews" and other such things and now all of a sudden they are concerned about the health of Jewish babies? Jews don't need to answer to any of them, this is a Halahic discussion and should be (and it is) addressed by Talmedei Hachamim and not ignoramouses on the street and media, be they gentiles or Jewish ignoramuses and/or reshaim.
Seems like some people(ack) have issues with the entire Circumcision command...
This story is really nothing to laugh at though. No doubt the anti-circumcision forces will latch onto this and make it harder (or illegal) for us to perform the Brit on future generations.
I've been to several Orthodox Brit ceremonies and observed the ritual and every one has grown into a healthy young man...
Don't know what soap and water means, but your sceename should be changed to angryChineseFaggit because Rav Kahane would not tolerate such sh^t from someone calling themselves a "Kahanist".
Here is a discussion of some of the issues involved:
http://www.torahtalk.net/Archives/576527.htmTAZRIA (Leviticus, 12:1‑13:59)
"Blood Libel 2005"
I really didn’t want to write this article.
Often, the best way to react to negative PR is to ignore it. When you respond to ugly accusations, you sometimes exacerbate the problem by giving a forum to a topic that does not deserve one. I hoped that the story would die down and go away. Therefore, I chose to remain silent.
Ironically, this terrible tragedy has been great for business. I have received phone calls and emails from concerned parents in search for a Mohel who wouldn’t “endanger” their child. After a satisfactory conversation, they have been relieved of worry, and happy to utilize my services.
Then, someone went too far.
I was examiming a baby prior to his Bris. The father asked me about my methodology. When I responded to his questions, he responded, “Good. That’s terrible, what that rabbi did to that baby!”
"... what that rabbi did to that baby." The story is not going away. The lies are continuing to be told, and believed. Now, at least within our forum of friends, I feel the need to speak out. You, who are kind enough to read what I have to say on Torah topics, deserve to know the truth.
The truth is that a good man, and a holy practice, are being maligned in the press. And, as we know all too well, few stories sell as well as those that trash Torah Judaism. (See “Sorry PETA, Pig’s Feet aren’t Kosher!”)
I refer, of course, to the Metzitzah controversy.
At issue is the question of whether a Mohel has infected twin babies, one of whom died, and other children, with Herpes. As a result, there is talk of governmental agencies regulating the practice of religious circumcision. As an additional result, the country is abuzz with stories about this practice, and ridiculing Judaism with accusations of the worst kinds of perversion.
This week’s Torah Portion tells us that an eight-day-old boy needs to be circumcised. That is all it says. There are no instructions in the Written Torah as to how to do a Bris. That is explained in the Talmud.
The Talmud requires that after a child is circumcised the blood should be drawn away from the wound by suction. I have always considered this to be similar to allowing the area of a tooth extraction to bleed in order to carry possible pathogens away from the wound site, thus reducing the risk of infection. Especially in view of the fact that a knife that LOOKS clean is not necessarily sterile, the requirement of Metzitzah (suction) is yet another indication of the wisdom of the Sages of Israel.
It is clear and obvious that the Talmud’s intent in insisting upon Metzitzah is a safety issue. In fact, the Talmud states that a Mohel who does not perform Metzitzah is endangering children and needs to be dismissed from his position.
The most convenient method of applying this suction is orally. (Envision the old cowboy, out on the range, sucking the poison out of a snake bite.) Until a few hundred years ago, this is how every Mohel suctioned the blood away from the wound.
To be sure, the image of a rabbi sucking blood away from a circumcision does not, to say the least, sit well with the average modern American. One may wonder whether a procedure, designed ostensibly to prevent disease, may do just the opposite. In addition, the connotations of such act certainly seem to fly in the face of a religion that insists upon the avoidance of any appearance of impropriety. Indeed, one newspaper article, written (of course) by a Jewish reporter, wonders how “… in a time of concern about pedophilia and child abuse, an adult can be permitted to…” (I won’t dignify the remainder of the question with a direct quote)
Many years ago, opponents of religious circumcision used their objections to Metzitzah as an excuse to ban circumcision entirely. Much of this opposition to Bris emanated from members of the Jewish community. They claimed that circumcision was an antiquated and dangerous practice that modern Jewry should reject.
As a result of this controversy, the Metzitzah tube was introduced. The Mohel would place a sterile glass tube over the site of the circumcision, and apply suction to the other end of the tube. This method, which prevents a mixture of bodily fluids, was considered safer for the baby as well as the Mohel.
Many Torah sages embraced this concept as a way of maintaining the tradition of Metzitzah without compromising standards of sterile surgical procedure. Others, who saw this as a departure from traditional practices, saw the Metzitzah tube as a threat to Torah observance.
The debate continues. Many Torah authorities, including those under whom I have studied, see the Metzitzah tube as being in full compliance with the Talmud’s requirement for suctioning blood away from the wound. Others, especially, but not strictly limited to, those within the Chassidic community, insist upon Metzitzah b’feh -- oral suction.
A twenty-first century mind such as yours or mine may be tempted to question such a position. After all, with everything we know today about sterility, how can such a procedure be tolerated?
An article recently appeared in a prominent medical magazine calling for the cessation of Metzitzah b’feh. The magazine claimed that a number of babies who had developed Herpes had been linked to their Mohels. Many have cited this article as proof that Metzitzah must be done with a sterile tube. Many others have questioned the findings of this article.
I am not going to comment on the article either way. I would like to point out a different observation.
A pediatrician who treats many of the members of a particular Chassidic community pointed out that that particular community produces “a new kindergarten class every month.” The Chassidic community, with its high birthrate, G-d bless them, does not, by and large, accept the use of a Metzitzah tube.
With the thousands upon thousands of babies being born in that community, one would expect to see a high incidence of Metzitzah b’feh-related disease. They are not seeing it! Their doctors (, almost all of whom are not Chassidic, or even particularly religious,) are not reporting it!
It has been widely reported that a Mohel in my community has been infecting children with Herpes. Let me state for the record that this man, who has dedicated his career to helping people, is an expert Mohel. He has traveled all over the world, especially to the former Soviet Union, to perform the Brisses for Jews who might otherwise not have had access to a Mohel. I have occasionally consulted him for advice on complicated cases.
The story, reported everywhere from the New York Times to Al Jazeera, is that the rabbi circumcised twin boys, both of whom developed Herpes, one of whom died. The Mohel has been under investigation. Meanwhile, the New York City Health Department ruled that he could not do Metzitzah b’feh, pending the conclusion of the investigation.
What has been widely reported within the Jewish community, but not picked up in the press, is that the Mohel has fully cooperated with the investigation. He has reportedly tested negatively in repeated blood and DNA tests. It has also been reported that one of the babies had a suspicious rash BEFORE the Bris.
Rumors abound. So much is being claimed about the details of this case. Eventually it will all come out. I believe that the Mohel will be exonerated. But don’t expect the New York Times to report on that. (“All the news that fits, we print!”) Where will a decent and righteous man go to regain his reputation?
As you can see, I am on both sides of this issue.
I do not perform Metzitzah b’feh. I don’t need to. My teachers feel that it is not necessary. When parents have requested Metzitzah b’feh, I have respectfully suggested that I will do the Bris and the father can do the Metzitzah. When parents have insisted upon Metzitzah b’feh, performed BY THE MOHEL, I have respectfully recommended that they find another Mohel.
That having been said, I must emphasize that many great authorities whom I greatly respect have advocated continuing to do Metzitzah as it was done in the time of the Talmud. Is it safe? A lot of people who are a lot smarter than I maintain that it is. (Many articles and books have been written on the topic of Metzitzah b’feh, attempting to demonstrate that it is actually SAFER than Metzitzah with a sterile tube. I don’t know. If you are interested in more information, you may click here and draw your own conclusion.)
I am very concerned about this controversy. While, as I indicated above, it really doesn’t directly affect me and my practice as a Mohel, nobody (at least, nobody whom I respect) wants government intervention in religious practice. But that is where we are headed. That’s what PETA wants to do to Kosher slaughter, and that’s what the anti-circumcision crowd wants to do to Bris Milah. They don’t want to regulate Kosher slaughter and ritual circumcision; they want to END them. And, all too often, our biggest opponents tend to be Jews.
The word Bris means covenant. It is a contract between G-d and Israel. We must do His will, and He will watch over us. May G-d watch over that poor grief-stricken family who lost their baby. May He watch over an honorable Mohel and bless him with continued success. May He protect us from all harm and disease. May He protect us from government meddling into our religious affairs.
And may he protect us from all enemies; be they from outside the Jewish community or from within.
Don't know what soap and water means, but your sceename should be changed to angryChineseFaggit because Rav Kahane would not tolerate such sh^t from someone calling themselves a "Kahanist".
Your response is not appropriate. Look at Muman's response..that's how we should speak to one another.
Your condemning my response yet not addressing the previous insult he jabbed?
I have no problem with Muman providing additional information on the subject. It makes his posts worth reading in many cases. However, I agree with Kahane that this is a terrible practice. I have vocally opposed any attempts to outlaw circumcision but this is a case of tradition trumping common sense which I cannot favor.
The Fox News article has some misinformation as no baby has contracted HIV yet from MBP. THe DOHMA has acknowledged that fact so expect a correction on that aspect of the story in the next few days.
- The baby did not get it from the mohel, his older brother had it. Their are different ways that it can and is transmitted including through the mother.
- This came up before, bloomfag wants to and wanted to bann it. This is a halahic discussion and should be solely within the Orthodox Jewish community to decide what they do and want to do and how this should be done. Perverted reshaim should have no say on this.
KWRBT although you do not hold of this, recognize that others do. And as such since their are things you do that others do not and you want and expect respect for your Halahic practices soo should the courtesy be extended unto others as well.
Sorry but no matter how many people "hold of" this, it is criminal malevolence to put a child at risk. You are correct that the risk in terms of numbers (statistics, percentages) is low as it happens very rarely, but it still happens and can happen. Why take that risk? Its putting a child at risk for no reason when the halacha provides plenty of leeway and leniency on this issue to make the risk zero by doing it differently. So someone sticking to it and putting their child at risk is nothing but a chossid shoteh IMO, being strict because they think its spiritual or something.
Sorry but no matter how many people "hold of" this, it is criminal malevolence to put a child at risk. You are correct that the risk in terms of numbers (statistics, percentages) is low as it happens very rarely, but it still happens and can happen. Why take that risk? Its putting a child at risk for no reason when the halacha provides plenty of leeway and leniency on this issue to make the risk zero by doing it differently. So someone sticking to it and putting their child at risk is nothing but a chossid shoteh IMO, being strict because they think its spiritual or something.
It is not just Chassidic ritual. It has been performed by all Jews until recently (last 100 years)...
I have posted good information on the whys and wherefores concerning this. You seem to want to jump on the bandwagon of the libelers of circumcision. You do realize that a small number of boys have been 'disfigured' by circumcision? Look at the anti-circumcision propaganda... Every boy who goes through with ritual circumcision is at risk...
Metzitzah must be performed one way or another... I would say that the tube method may appear safer but I don't know if there are any statistics to prove this.
Perhaps not doing this is more riskier then doing it because the blood can still stay in even with the tube.
Also who said that it is putting the child at risk? You are making too many assumptions.
These are issues that are addressed with the halahic authorities and the conclusions each group makes should be respected.
You calling it "criminal" is wayy over the top
and on top of that having secular or non-Jewish government intervene is even more criminal because once you give them leeway they will bann circumcision altogether, and these are discussions in Halacha and no outside gov.
and am haartzim should have a say in this especially those who make fun of and project their own nasty perverted ideas and minds unto this subject.
I'm still of the opinion that there's no legitimate reason for a grown man to be putting his mouth on a baby's genitalia.
BINGO. I was starting to wonder why I was the only one thinking that.
Don't know what soap and water means, but your sceename should be changed to angryChineseFaggit because Rav Kahane would not tolerate such sh^t from someone calling themselves a "Kahanist".
We have explained it over and over again, it is concerning sucking a drop of blood in order to increase the flow of blood in order to reduce infection.
That you suggest something sinister is a question you should address because if I suggest something you would be insulted.
http://www.askmoses.com/en/article/569,2173973/Why-does-a-mohel-suck-the-blood-after-circumcision.html
BINGO. I was starting to wonder why I was the only one thinking that.
There can be no explanation for that, that's sufficient to justify a grown man putting their mouth on a child's genitalia. I see the explanations and my response is that it's not good enough, and no explanation can be.
You're definitely not the only one. Some people don't want to post about it because they don't want to risk offending some of the posters here though.
By the way, there is no religious excuse for paedophilia!
Yes you are correct, but this isn't pedophilia. It is only filthy minds such as yours that think of it this way.
Yes you are correct, but this isn't pedophilia. It is only filthy minds such as yours that think of it this way.
....
Obviously you are entitled to your opinion. But I doubt it will change a thing. Gentiles have said the same thing for many centuries and this ritual is still performed today.
I don't think that they're intending harm, but I still think that it's very inappropriate as well as dangerous. On the surface of it, it does resemble pedophilia and that's bad enough, regardless of the intention behind it.
I support the Jews in the international battle against Islam. I support Israel, but i DON'T support perversion like this!
There is nothing perverted about it. Unfortunately your mind leads you to think it is..
Yeah, all Jews are secretly pedophiles and those who have had the brit are all messed up because of it... yeah..
Maybe you should look at the pedophile priests who have sex with young boys before you accuse a mohel of being a pedophile. How many have been accused of such things?
Yeah, all Jews are secretly pedophiles and those who have had the brit are all messed up because of it... yeah..
Maybe you should look at the pedophile priests who have sex with young boys before you accuse a mohel of being a pedophile. How many have been accused of such things?
Yeah, all Jews are secretly pedophiles and those who have had the brit are all messed up because of it... yeah..
Maybe you should look at the pedophile priests who have sex with young boys before you accuse a mohel of being a pedophile. How many have been accused of such things?
There is nothing sexual about the brit. It is a procedure which the entire congregation is involved with, right before our eyes, and nothing untoward is involved. It takes only a couple of seconds and it is over...
I don't want to stop Jews from doing the bris on their babies but I do think that antiquated and dangerous techniques like that should be illegal. If anybody else did the same thing to a baby or even the baby's own father did such a thing criminal charges could be brought up.
I'am not sure how many. They should be hanged to. Paedophilia is paedophilia. It's something a 'normal' desent man should never ever do. It doesnt matter to me... Catholic, Islamic, Jew, Protestant.Jesus must of been a pedofile too, huh?
I support the Jews in the international battle against Islam. I support Israel, but i DON'T support perversion like this!
Huh? There is nothing criminal about it. And a father can touch his son in cases of health. If there was harm done then it is a crime, but there is nothing wrong with what is done during a brit.
Are those arguing against this practice also arguing against using the glass tube to suck the blood? Or only using the mouth?
Don't support it, no one is asking. We just wont stand for calling this pedophilia and other such things because it absolutely is not. What pedophile no matter how sick would get enjoyment drawing out blood for a splitt second and then spitting it out? The intention is only for the health of the child and for the recovery process.
And you think there is no 'normal' and 'modern' way to do it?
And you think there is no 'normal' and 'modern' way to do it?
I don't want to go into details but we have all heard the reports of the newborn dying from Herpes simplex virus transmitted by oral suction from the Mohel. Do all Hassidic sects practice this? Do non Hassidim practice this? This disgusts me on more levels than I can describe.Have mercy... How can any parent put their child at risk with procedures like this... I could not care less if it was done this way for time in memorial once man learned deadly disease could be spread to the infant by doing it that way it should have been stopped cold... I can't believe this issue generated a 3 page thread... Personally there is a level to what I will absorb in the name of religion and a circumcision done with this oral procedure included really goes far past that point... Despite all the protests to the contrary I can't help seeing an element of child molestation in the picture.
Have mercy... How can any parent put their child at risk with procedures like this... I could not care less if it was done this way for time in memorial once man learned deadly disease could be spread to the infant by doing it that way it should have been stopped cold... I can't believe this issue generated a 3 page thread... Personally there is a level to what I will absorb in the name of religion and a circumcision done with this oral procedure included really goes far past that point... Despite all the protests to the contrary I can't help seeing an element of child molestation in the picture.
Yay... Who cares..:::D You do or you would not have answered. :laugh:
No, just like a part of the anatomy, everyone has an opinion. When it comes to Jewish law, those opinions are just like that part of the anatomy..Jewish law only really applies in a truly Jewish country... Now days I am not sure even Israel could pass that test... Anyone that thinks different has their brains in the part of the anatomy you refer to... A sure way to have religion circumcision banned even in a country like the United States is to have it become a health risk to even a small number of infants... Up until recently this issue has gone under the radar... Sadly this is no longer the case.
Jewish law only really applies in a truly Jewish country... Now days I am not sure even Israel could pass that test... Anyone that thinks different has their brains in the part of the anatomy you refer to... A sure way to have religion circumcision banned even in a country like the United States is to have it become a health risk to even a small number of infants... Up until recently this issue has gone under the radar... Sadly this is no longer the case.
No, Jewish law applies to Jews where ever they live... You are the one who suggests otherwise. And you are now bordering on some antisemitic comments. Jews are commanded to keep the commandments no matter where they live. Just because you say otherwise means you don't understand Jewish law.Everything said you don't like borders on being antisemitic... So be it... As a non Jew I have more than likely been more consistent in my support of Jewish Issues through out my life than you have during yours... I know your making up for lost time so you have to sometimes over do it :::D It's OK... In my opinion this is an issue that should not even be discussed with non Jews because most will never understand it... This is the sort of thread really that should never see the light of day.
They will not outlaw circumcision as long as Jews are valuable here in America. Once they start to do this America will be headed the route of Nazi germany.
No, just like a part of the anatomy, everyone has an opinion. When it comes to Jewish law, those opinions are just like that part of the anatomy..If these opinions are all irrelevant and insignificant, why are they working you up so much? You and I both know that halacha does not require this and that very, very, very few religious Jews do it in the modern era. Why are you taking it as though it were an insult to your mother?
There is another thread about this somewhere on JTF which contains some good information if I remember correctly.
Only a small subset of people do this part of the ritual as it is not a necessary part of the circumcision. A glass tube or just gauze can be used instead.
It was believed in ancient times that the suction of blood away from the wound would contribute toward healing and prevent complications and infection. Let's be mature adults and see "metzitza b'peh" for what it is - a medical procedure. I admit that at times I thought of this as "inappropriate" in some way, but I think only a sick mind really thinks there is something untoward about this - Medical procedures are not and cannot be "untoward." However, we now know that it is not necessary to be done in that format as we have other ways of removing the blood, and likewise we found out that there are actual risks involved with doing it. IMO anyone who allows the metzitza bpeh to be done to their child is criminally insane, given what we know and what the risks are. There is absolutely no reason to put a baby at risk.
Muman, it doesn't matter how old something is. It was thought to prevent infection. But now we know it can cause a certain type of infection that could be deadly. As such, there are other ways of doing it (glass tube or gauze), and many poskim say it is not an essential part of the Bris, just a health precaution. If it truly was a health precaution, it would be essential to do it, for the baby's sake, but actually it's a health risk. So it's essential not to do it!
And as per your style, he was asking about metzitza b'peh, and you put up an article about METZIZTAH, defending it as 3000 year old custom. How about just address what he's asking about so that you do not conflate the issues?
I have no problem with Muman providing additional information on the subject. It makes his posts worth reading in many cases. However, I agree with Kahane that this is a terrible practice. I have vocally opposed any attempts to outlaw circumcision but this is a case of tradition trumping common sense which I cannot favor.
I'm still of the opinion that there's no legitimate reason for a grown man to be putting his mouth on a baby's genitalia.
If these opinions are all irrelevant and insignificant, why are they working you up so much? You and I both know that halacha does not require this and that very, very, very few religious Jews do it in the modern era. Why are you taking it as though it were an insult to your mother?
I have to agree with KWRBT and JTFE. Does that make me "anti-Semitic", even though both of those are Jews? :laugh:
I have to agree with KWRBT and JTFE. Does that make me "anti-Semitic", even though both of those are Jews? :laugh:
Haaa? What do you know about Halacha and why does it concern you in any way. Let the Rabbanim and the Jews deal with Halacha and you keep to your boundaries.
And if Chaim doesn't want to do it, fine and good (I probably agree with him) but this is not a case where we want or would appreciate it that gentiles or am haartzim (ignorant Jews) have a say in this matter. All the more soo try to bann it or anything else done by Jews.
It is an evil slippery slope and any Jew who would allow things like this to be banned (by coercion by gentile or secular governments) is bordering possibly on the sin of being a mosser.
Tag,
The people who are practicing this are totally ignorant. With most people being carriers for Herpes Simplex I, there is no reason to do this procedure as some presently do it. Why should a baby start out his life with a genital infection? I agree the media loves these stories, but these hard headed Hasids need to crack a science book instead of selfishly putting their children at risk. There are ways to modify this to continue the symboilc meaning, but there is no reason, barring emergencies for people to be sucking blood out of a person's wound...and even then I would want to know the specifics
Ahmadinajob also agrees with 2 Jews as well. With Norman Finkelstein YSV and Dovid Weiss YSV
Muman,
I hope you're not comparing me to them. I dont think anyone here would criticize this LESS if it were being done by a Christian vicar or even the pope! It's wrong to say this is necessarily, de facto, about anti-Semitism.
Really JTFE2, they are totally ignorant.... I take offense at that. I know several great Jews who are not ignorant who had this procedure which I observed at the brit and there was absolutely no issue with it.
I think this argument has gone on way too long giving those who despise Jewish law a chance to let their opinions be known.
Are you OK JTFE2? You address me when it was Tag who made the comment you quoted?
But I agree with Tag in this argument... I seek to avoid harming the infant but at the same time do not see that this procedure causes more risk than anything else which may be done. The entire circumcision is a risk which is why it is not done till the eighth day..
Muman,
I despise anti-Semites who say circumcision is barbaric, because it is NOT. Babies do not have the central nervous systems of adults, their experience of pain is totally different. Given them a little sugar water and 3 minutes later, it's all over. Its well know that circumcision reduces the likelihood of HIV transmission. This has saved thousands of lives, if not many more, in Africa. But this b'peh in this era is unfair to the baby. I dont care how pious and pristine the mohel's mouth is, a mouth is a mouth and it's not sterile!
Muman,
I hope you're not comparing me to them. I dont think anyone here would criticize this LESS if it were being done by a Christian vicar or even the pope! It's wrong to say this is necessarily, de facto, about anti-Semitism.
Muman,
a mouth is a mouth and it's not sterile!
I wouldn't care.
If someone would say that they prefer the other method's etc. Then it would be fine and I would and do probably agree with that. BUT when they start saying and write evil things like "pedophilia" and other such things then that is something else.
They use mouthwash and wash their mouth beforehand. Please tell me have you ever seen it done? Most people do not even notice it.
I have seen it done. I admit that I do not like going to circumcisions or watching them or hearing the baby cry. That said I do think it's the right thing to do for the baby. No man wants to grow up with a condition called phimosis either which is very painful, will require adult circumcision and is totally avoidable
Your condemning my response yet not addressing the previous insult he jabbed?
because I did not attack you.
You attacked me.
I still have not attacked you. I don't plan on either.
I still love you no matter what.
2 I did not insult anyone or thing.
3 you already condemned me.
and no I don't understand the cutting issue as much as jews. I look at it from a medical and scientific view. don't forget, I was born in china, therefore I'm a communist and there is no Gad in China or Russia.
you mean the rabbi "muh diked" the baby boy?
:::D
You didn't address me but you did insult my religion and my people basically
Then I responded to you in kind.
No baby wants to grow up with a missing limb (G-D forbid) but people still drive. All necessary precautions must and are taken, but one cannot take a case that is less then 1% of 1 % and perhaps only a possibility and blow it out of proportion making it seem thagt every other Jewish male child is having these problems. I am sure that some of the Jewish males on this thread had this done as well and they might not even be away. Almost for sure if they are of Sefardic background. Many (not all) Askenasic as well.
no you said go to hell according to google translate.
I just called my Chabad Rabbi to check out Chabads position.
He said Halacha, according to Chabad, requires Metzitzah B'Peh otherwise the entire procedure is null and void. He related a story about Jews who needed a circumcision in Russia when they were permitted to do so (after the fall of the iron curtain). To make a long story short I accept my Rabbis opinion and defend it.
By the way if I or Muman had been making a thread about christian practices and anything like that, it would have been locked. For example had I said that crackers and whine should be banned in christian ceremonies because they literally say it is the blood and body of yeshu and that is canibalism how would the christians react? Do I say it needs to be banned? No. Do I care about that practice NO. BUT ppl would have locked that thread.It's been said... I thought you were all open to this sort of open discussion here on the forum? I guess it only is good when your bashing the Gentiles brains in and they are to polite to respond to you as they sometimes should.
I like Chabad and I would want to know if and how they qualify this. Muman, I admire your zest and your refusal to back down to something that you feel is motivated by Jew Hatred. I really do not feel that this is the case here, in this instance. I know you will go with your rabbi and I respect your commitment, even if in this case, I don't quite agree with you.
By the way if I or Muman had been making a thread about christian practices and anything like that, it would have been locked. For example had I said that crackers and whine should be banned in christian ceremonies because they literally say it is the blood and body of yeshu and that is canibalism how would the christians react? Do I say it needs to be banned? No. Do I care about that practice NO. BUT ppl would have locked that thread.
It's been said... I thought you were all open to this sort of open discussion here on the forum? I guess it only is good when your bashing the Gentiles brains in and they are to polite to respond to you as they sometimes should.
You want it locked? I will lock it although I never locked any of the anti- Gentile threads... Just ask.
What discussion exactly? I think someone (Debbie perhaps) asked who would be open to christian vs. Jewish discussion on the forum. I did say I would, but that was in the realm of having a discussion about why we say that christianity and all other beliefs are false and I would guess others trying to defend that. The idea never went through and we do not have that.
And when their were similar things the threads were locked, people were outrages. Yett this thread goes on.
Really JTFE2, they are totally ignorant.... I take offense at that. I know several great Jews who are not ignorant who had this procedure which I observed at the brit and there was absolutely no issue with it.Everybody else has pointed out that this is not Jewish law, but one very archaic way of doing circumcision that almost no devout Jews do anymore. Explain how this is an integral part of halacha, since most people disagree with you.
I think this argument has gone on way too long giving those who despise Jewish law a chance to let their opinions be known.
I think there are a few different issues here.
1: So anybody who is opposed to one very archaic and unsanitary method of circumcision, that most Jews oppose and do not practice, is actually a Nazi? Please. Give us a freaking break. Are you trying to make us laugh?
2: The issue at hand is that the Bible commands the circumcision of Jewish infants. It's open and shut. In the modern era there are hygienic ways to do this that minimize infection, pain, and blood loss. A great many doctors are frum Jews and have developed/pioneered/approved of such methods. Nobody here opposes circumcision!
3: Several people here, Gentile and Jewish both, seem to think that all male infants should be circumcised regardless of background. I think this is overstepping. This was a commandment given by G-d to the Jews, not all of mankind. I know that there are certain health benefits to circumcision regarding STD transmission, etc., but these would be moot points if boys were taught Biblical sexual morality and had sex with only one person that had also made a commitment to do the same. Gentile parents should make the choice for themselves without any pressure or guilttripping.
I think there are a few different issues here.
1: So anybody who is opposed to one very archaic and unsanitary method of circumcision, that most Jews oppose and do not practice, is actually a Nazi? Please. Give us a freaking break. Are you trying to make us laugh?
2: The issue at hand is that the Bible commands the circumcision of Jewish infants. It's open and shut. In the modern era there are hygienic ways to do this that minimize infection, pain, and blood loss. A great many doctors are frum Jews and have developed/pioneered/approved of such methods. Nobody here opposes circumcision!
3: Several people here, Gentile and Jewish both, seem to think that all male infants should be circumcised regardless of background. I think this is overstepping. This was a commandment given by G-d to the Jews, not all of mankind. I know that there are certain health benefits to circumcision regarding STD transmission, etc., but these would be moot points if boys were taught Biblical sexual morality and had sex with only one person that had also made a commitment to do the same. Gentile parents should make the choice for themselves without any pressure or guilttripping.
'Most Jews' you refer to are reform, and they don't circumcise anyway...
All Orthodox circumcisions include this or else they are not valid halachically. As Tag has said several times it is not up to you to decide, nor all those who ignore the halacha, it is up to those who know the halacha..
Judaism is a system of laws and customs... We do not make stuff up as we go along like some other religions... So too on other issues, homosexual marriage, homosexual relations, ritual purity laws, laws of kashrut, etc... These are the laws, you either keep them, or you don't...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/06/health/deadly-drug-resistant-infections-rise-in-hospitals-report-warns.html?_r=0
I do not like how this so called rabbi uses the Holocaust to institute fear in other Jews. Shame on him. In the worst case scenario, banning b'peh is not the initiation of Kristallnacht. What kind of sick and selfish person would say something like that??
The nazis banned all Jewish rituals. Any country which follows the nazis lead will follow them to destruction.
We were given a gift, but we couldn't hold on to it...
Muman,
Fear is talking. It's talking through this rabbi's mouth and it's talking through you. No one is saying ban circumcision. No one is even saying ban b'peh. I'm saying modify it. We used to believe the world was flat. Is it heretical to say it's not? Will we be punished for it?
On a personal level, I dont like what this rabbi is doing. He may not know it, but it's manipulative. I believe in calling a Jew hater a Jew hater and not mincing any words about it, but this is not that. I dont like that he invokes the Holocaust to distract from the needed discussion--certainly among Jews, about this practice. I dont care if particular person doesn't 'believe' in circumcision, then don't get circumcized! I don't believe this debate about b'peh is like that and I don't believe that everyone against b'peh as it is, is akin to a neonazi, that's just totally untrue, even if b'peh is used by neonazis
In response to muman's rabbi:
If metitza is not done by mouth then according him, none of us Jews including me, Chaim's kids, or a Jew who gets it via a glass tube had a valid circumcision? I'm sorry, but that's just plain retarded.
No one on the pro suction mouth even answered my argument. If using the mouth is an age old custom, then why do you not take a horse and buggy which was an age old custom? Why not live amongst Quakers who rarely use modern technology? There is something demented about this argument by some traditional Jews.
What's wrong with the glass tube? Why must you be do vehemently stubborn about metitza beh peh? Really? I don't understand this zealotry and I don't understand how the glass tube suction is anti Judaism to your Chabad rabbi. That's really messed up.
Someone address me on this argument. If I'm ignored I'll assume I'm right and you lost the argument.
In response to muman's rabbi:
If metitza is not done by mouth then according him, none of us Jews including me, Chaim's kids, or a Jew who gets it via a glass tube had a valid circumcision? I'm sorry, but that's just plain retarded.
No one on the pro suction mouth even answered my argument. If using the mouth is an age old custom, then why do you not take a horse and buggy which was an age old custom? Why not live amongst Quakers who rarely use modern technology? There is something demented about this argument by some traditional Jews.
What's wrong with the glass tube? Why must you be do vehemently stubborn about metitza beh peh? Really? I don't understand this zealotry and I don't understand how the glass tube suction is anti Judaism to your Chabad rabbi. That's really messed up.
Someone address me on this argument. If I'm ignored I'll assume I'm right and you lost the argument.
In response to muman's rabbi:
If metitza is not done by mouth then according him, none of us Jews including me, Chaim's kids, or a Jew who gets it via a glass tube had a valid circumcision? I'm sorry, but that's just plain retarded.
No one on the pro suction mouth even answered my argument. If using the mouth is an age old custom, then why do you not take a horse and buggy which was an age old custom? Why not live amongst Quakers who rarely use modern technology? There is something demented about this argument by some traditional Jews.
What's wrong with the glass tube? Why must you be do vehemently stubborn about metitza beh peh? Really? I don't understand this zealotry and I don't understand how the glass tube suction is anti Judaism to your Chabad rabbi. That's really messed up.
Someone address me on this argument. If I'm ignored I'll assume I'm right and you lost the argument.
In response to muman's rabbi:Exactly, if you give them anything they will take it all! The Rabbis aren't freaks, they are doing what they've done for thousands of years. Maybe modern society are the freaks...
If metitza is not done by mouth then according him, none of us Jews including me, Chaim's kids, or a Jew who gets it via a glass tube had a valid circumcision? I'm sorry, but that's just plain retarded.
No one on the pro suction mouth even answered my argument. If using the mouth is an age old custom, then why do you not take a horse and buggy which was an age old custom? Why not live amongst Quakers who rarely use modern technology? There is something demented about this argument by some traditional Jews.
What's wrong with the glass tube? Why must you be do vehemently stubborn about metitza beh peh? Really? I don't understand this zealotry and I don't understand how the glass tube suction is anti Judaism to your Chabad rabbi. That's really messed up.
Someone address me on this argument. If I'm ignored I'll assume I'm right and you lost the argument.
You are Sefardic, you had it done as well.
I never said or say it MUST be done this way and not another way. I am addressing 2 facts. Those who bash the Mohels and Rabbanim on this and 2) those who wish to interfere in Jewish life and do things like bann it.
Also you can't say you won the argument without listening to the experts on this issue. Why don't you contact a competent Rav on this and ask him yourself on what you should do in your situation.
Do you mean there is a mitzvah for b'peh?No, I was talking about America. We have failed and have been sucked right back into what we fought so hard against!
Dan,
As we have said OVER AND OVER.... The issue is HALACHA, or Jewish Law...
Why don't we ride a horse and buggy? Because there is no halacha preventing us from using an automobile, unless it is Shabbat... But then again a horse and buggy would be prohibited on Shabbat also, so there is your answer.
We do not use electricity by turning it on or off during Shabbat, I guess that too is a backward custom... I guess cooking on Friday so we don't have to cook on Shabbat is also a backward custom which should be thrown out. There are so many Halachas which don't fit in the modern world... What should we do?
Your questions have answers if you look for them..
The glass tube is a question which needs investigation whether it satisfies the Halacha. According to those in Chabad who looked at the issue it is not valid. My Rabbi did not give me the entire reason but I am sure when we have more time we will discuss it fully.
PS: I wasn't aware that Chaim had kids... I was not even aware he was married.. But maybe that is because he has not discussed it..
We have explained it over and over again, it is concerning sucking a drop of blood in order to increase the flow of blood in order to reduce infection.
That you suggest something sinister is a question you should address because if I suggest something you would be insulted.
http://www.askmoses.com/en/article/569,2173973/Why-does-a-mohel-suck-the-blood-after-circumcision.html
After almost 13 years with JTF I turn and stab the Jews in the back!
Calm down. I still love you.
BTW you spelled faggot wrong.
And please stop using AOL.
A person that does something like this must be hanged immediately!
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...
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?
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.
Pedophiles cut off foreskins and then suck blood away from the wound just before bandaging it? Never heard of such a thing.
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!
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
KWRBT I'm not talking about the circumcision part. I'm talking about the mouth-to-genital contact.
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
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.
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...QuoteThe 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.
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".
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
And you're still not making sense.
bc3,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 :::D... 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.
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
Water baptism did not come from the mikvah.
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 :::D... 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.
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.
Water baptism did not come from the mikvah.Are you saying that people were not completely submerged in water during a baptism?
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..
The only thing the two have in common is that they involve purification of sorts by water..
http://www.gotquestions.org/origin-baptism.html
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... :::D :::D
Oh, it is so very hateful to state the truth that about the origins of Christian rituals... Ho Ho Ho!Muman, you are a hateful person.
But of course it is NOT HATEFUL to call Mohels child molesters... Mmmm Hmmm...
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.
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.
Wikipedia? Really.
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).
.
.
.
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.
bc3,Muman, you misrepresent Christian beliefs and attribute antisemitism to decent people. People that are here to support Israel and the Jewish people. Many were here before you and probably left because of you. I can't help you with the Crusades or the Inquisitions. Believe it or not...I wasn't even around then. There is a pattern to your behavior and a goal. I am not going to sit by and let you get away with it. I don't care what you already expected from me or how you try to turn it around on me. I just don't like what you are doing to JTF and other people are too nice to tell you.
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.).
Executive Director
and Kashruth Rabbinical Coordinator
Rabbi Moshe Kushner a native of Chicago was ordained at the Hebrew Theological College and holds a B.A. from Loyola University. Prior to his arrival at the cRc as senior Kashrus coordinator he served as director of Camp Moshava for twenty-six years. He is also a certified Mohel and has been a member of the cRc for over three decades.
Responsibilities Include:
Trucking Industry
Kosher Fest
Passover
(773) 465-3900 ext 111 • e-mail
There is a pattern to your behavior and a goal. I am not going to sit by and let you get away with it. I don't care what you already expected from me or how you try to turn it around on me. I just don't like what you are doing to JTF and other people are too nice to tell you.
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...Honestly, I have had quite a few Jewish friends and coworkers over the years however I have never heard any Jewish male speak of going to something like that other than you... As for Bible reading it's not a big requirement for Roman Catholics... I do have both old and new testaments however I do not carry them around.
Someone (cjd) erroneously believes that Mikvah is only for women... :::D :::D