Volume 61 Number 35
Produced: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 01:25:57 EDT
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Examining the issue of Metzitzah BePeh (3)
[Sammy Finkelman Martin Stern Steven Oppenheimer]
Gender Relationships (3)
[Joel Rich Carl Singer Meir Shinnar]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sammy Finkelman <sammy.finkelman@...>
Date: Mon, Sep 10,2012 at 05:01 PM
Subject: Examining the issue of Metzitzah BePeh
In MJ 61#32, Nachum Binyamin Klafter, MD wrote:
> There exists another very important opinion regarding the halakha
> of "metzitza." This opinion states that "metzitza" was not a rabbinic
> enactment specifically made about the sucking of blood. Rather, this
> was a rabbinic enactment to apply the best principles of medical
> treatment to the circumcision wound.
There was an article that started on the front page of the English language
Yated Ne'eman this week about the proposed New York City Board of Health health
code amendment, scheduled to be adopted Sep. 13, that would allow metzitzah
b'peh to continue, but require anybody who used it to sign an "informed consent"
statement that stated there were certain risks. The Yated Ne'eman's policy
makers are determined to resist this and are organizing against it. Four pages
inside (pages 70-73) are devoted to this subject.
What's interesting is that it prints something written on August 28 by a
number of Rabbis and gives a translation, and this "kol kore"
described Metzitzah Be'Peh as a "custom". The Hebrew word that is
translated as custom is minhag.
They don't seem to be claiming this is necessary halachah. They do say
there's not the slightest tinge of jeopardy in it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Wed, Sep 12,2012 at 04:01 PM
Subject: Examining the issue of Metzitzah BePeh
Further to my posting (MJ 61#32), there is an article in the Jewish Press on
the subject which backs my fear:
> that the opposition to its curtailment in certain strictly Orthodox circles is
> motivated mainly by an opposition in principle to 'outsiders' trying to
> enforce 'improvements' on the observant Jewish community.
http://www.jewishpress.com/news/us-news/orthodox-leaders-fear-precedent-of-g
ovt-intervention-on-bris-rite/2012/09/12/0/
Inter alia it states:
> Under the proposed regulations, mohels would be required to distribute consent
> forms to parents and to keep those waivers for a minimum of one year. The
> precise wording of the form, which would warn of the potential risks, would be
> drafted by health officials, not rabbis.
> ...
> It is precisely the lack of rabbinical involvement in the proposed regulations
> that Rabbi Moshe Chaim Friedman of NYmohel.com finds unsettling.
> The problem with the way this is being done is that the city is not engaging
> in a dialogue with the people that this affects: the rabbonim, those involved
> in bris milah, said Rabbi Friedman.
> ...
> He said another concern was that the controversy has scared away irreligious
> people from having a bris altogether, no question about it. They have been led
> to believe that the rabbi performing the ritual harms babies.
>
> This isnt about defending metzitzah bpeh, he added. This is about
> defending our right to freedom of religion.
>
> Rabbi Friedman said that regulating any part of bris milah is a dangerous
> precedent.
>
> I see this as the beginning of the end. Once they insert themselves into
> religious practices there is no limit to what they can mandate.
> ...
> Rabbi Romi Cohn, a member of the American Board of Ritual Circumcision, a
> rabbinic board that has been regulating the practice of bris milah for over 50
> years, called the proposed regulations a blood libel.
>
> Two children died in a twelve-year period, said Rabbi Cohn. Mayor Bloomberg
> says he wants to protect Jewish children from getting hurt? If he is really
> concerned about the welfare of children, perhaps he should look at New York
> City hospitals that are under the jurisdiction of the Department of Health.
> Significantly more children have died of staph infections they contracted at
> New York hospitals than have ever died as a result of a bris milah.
> ...
> Rabbi Cohn noted members of the ABRC are trained both in the ritual and
> medicinal aspects of bris milah.
>
> What they are trying to regulate is something that we already are
> regulating, said Rabbi Cohn. The ABRCs regulations are much stricter than
> those of the medical profession, and we are much more careful than any doctor
> performing a circumcision.
> At a public hearing held four weeks ago, Rabbi Cohn informed the Department of
> Health that he had performed more than 25,000 circumcisions in his lifetime
> and that fellow members of the ABRC had also performed a significant number of
> circumcisions, and not once in any of those cases had there been any incidence
> of infection in the circumcised babies, let alone any deaths.
>
> We believe in regulating circumcision, said Rabbi Cohn. But by religious
> authorities, not the government. By attempting to regulate metzitzah bpeh,
> they are infringing on our constitutional rights.
> ...
> Even some in the Orthodox community who are not necessarily in favor of
> metzitzah b'peh have voiced opposition to the city's proposal.
>
> The Rabbinical Council of America issued this statement on Monday: "Many
> Jewish legal authorities have ruled that direct oral suction is not an
> integral part of the circumcision ritual, and therefore advocate the use of a
> sterile tube to preclude any risk of infection. The RCA has gone on record as
> accepting the position of those authorities. Nevertheless, the RCA respects
> the convictions and sensitivities of those in the Orthodox Jewish community
> who disagree with this ruling and joins in their deep concern about
> government regulation of religious practices"
>
> "The RCA supports the recent call of the Agudath Israel of America to New York
> Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the New York Health Department that, instead of
> unilaterally imposing regulations, they collaborate with Orthodox Jewish
> leadership to develop protocols to address health concerns."
> ...
> "This is the government forcing a rabbi practicing a religious ritual to tell
> his congregants it could hurt their child," said Rabbi Niederman. "If, God
> forbid, there was a danger, we would be the first to stop the practice."
I think we need to discuss how one can present the medical opinions so that
they are not perceived as outside interference but as in the interest of all
concerned.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Steven Oppenheimer <steven.oppenheimer@...>
Date: Wed, Sep 12,2012 at 05:01 PM
Subject: Examining the issue of Metzitzah BePeh
The Metzitzah bePeh (MbP) controversy continues unabated. On the heels of
CDC reporting on the dangers of unprotected MbP, a leading expert on
Infectious Diseases, and Chief of Infectious Diseases at Johns Hopkins, Dr.
Jonathan Zenilman has written a letter to NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg
criticizing the stance taken by Agudas Yisroel regarding the MbP issue.
(See
http://www.vosizneias.com/113391/2012/09/11/baltimore-md-top-u-s-infectious-diseases-physician-refutes-agudahs-assertions-on-mbp)
Dr. Zenilman accuses Agudah of ignoring the scientific facts:
1) The clinical and epidemiological data are incontrovertible. MbP is a
known and recognized risk factor for the transmission of Herpes. In the
Infectious Disease community there is no doubt that MbP carries risk.
There is unanimous consensus among leaders in the Herpes field and among
leaders in the Infectious Disease community who study these infections that
MbP has been associated with HSV transmission.
2) The studies actually underestimate the risk, and only represent data
that was obtained from New York.
3) The Agudah objective is to clearly transmit the perception of doubt.
The Agudah's position is irresponsible from the perspective of children's
health and supports a practice that puts children at risk.
4) The Agudah has framed the issue as a matter of "religious freedom."
Nothing could be further from the truth.
The above are some of the highlights from Dr. Zenilman's letter.
What has Agudah been doing? They announced they are going to sue NYC.
In a previous post I presented some of the reasons both halachic and
medical why direct MbP should be reconsidered.
I would like to examine why MbP is such a strong issue in parts of the
Chareidi world.
The Shulchan Aruch, O. Ch. (at the end of siman 584) considers the question
of when to perform a Brit Milah on Rosh HaShana. The Sh. A. informs us that
the Brit Milah should be done between the reading of the Torah (after
Ashrei) just before Shofar blowing. The Taz (584:2) recounts an
interesting (if not unusual) story about R. Feivish of Cracow who, after
performing a Milah on Rosh HaShanna, did not wipe his mouth after the
Milah, but proceeded to blow Shofar "with his mouth dirty with the Milah
blood so that he could join the mitzvah of Milah and Shofar." Mishnah
Berurah (584:12) adds that it is proper to clean the mouth and wash the
hands to show proper respect for the bracha. This actually is taken from Y.D.
265 where the Sh. Aruch quotes the Avudraham that it is not proper to make the
blessing on the Milah with bloody mouth and hands.
What is going on here with this seemingly odd story? The Katzeh HaMateh,
commenting on the Mateh Ephraim (584), explains the Kabalistic symbols and
imagery behind this story. Rabbi Feivish wanted to connect Milah (our
covenant with G-d affirming our commitment to Torah SheBeAl Peh) with
Shofar (Akeidat Yitzchok - Yitzchok who was willing to give his life for
Torah SheBeAl Peh) in order to emphasize this connection and show our love
for our tradition as defined by Torah SheBeAl Peh.
Most germane to our discussion is the Gematria that is explained by the
Katzeh HaMateh. Milah (85) equals Peh (85) in Gematria. Thus the custom
to do Metzitzah bePeh to highlight this association.
I get it.
There is a long standing tradition to do MbP with direct mouth contact.
Kabalah is very important in our tradition. However, medical evidence
tells us that this practice is not as benign as we had previously thought.
Furthermore, as I mentioned in my previous post, Rav Chaim Brisker
paskened that using a tube is kegufo mamash - the same as using one's
mouth. For the last 180 years many prominent poskim have approved using a
glass tube to do metzitzah.
Agudas Yisroel is a noble institution that seeks to defend and uphold
Jewish tradition. I support much of the work Agudah does. Perhaps today's
bacteria and viruses are more virulent. Perhaps our methods of reporting
morbidity are more exacting. The fact is that the evidence that MbP can be
dangerous is impressive. Why is it being ignored? The death or maiming of
even one child is not acceptable. The ways of the Torah are pleasant.
No one wants the government to regulate our religious practice, but denying
medical evidence is fraught with danger. What lies down the road? If we do
not act responsibly, what challenges will confront us?
(Note: While correct Hebrew dictates the term should be metzitzah befeh, I
chose to use the more customary term metzitzah bepeh so as not to suggest
any denigration to the practice).
Steven Oppenheimer, D.M.D.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joel Rich <JRich@...>
Date: Mon, Sep 10,2012 at 01:01 PM
Subject: Gender Relationships
Martin Stern (MJ 61#34) quoted from this week's Weekly Halacha Discussion by
Rabbi Doniel Neustadt:
> Question: Is it ever permitted to shake hands with a woman? Is there a
> dispensation to do so if otherwise one would suffer a substantial loss or
> would embarrass the woman, possibly causing a chillul Hashem?
>
> Discussion: ... There are, however, some situations where a handshake is
> offered as a matter of protocol, such as an introduction to a customer or an
> employer, to a doctor or to a distinguished politician. In these situations,
> the handshake is not a sign of affection, friendship or a personal
> relationship and would, theoretically, be permitted. Still, the poskim are
> in agreement that one must do whatever he can to avoid shaking hands under
> these circumstances as well. This is because the yetzer hara for arayos is
> overwhelming. An innocent handshake may lead to a casual embrace; a harmless
> introduction may blossom into a full-blown illicit relationship. It is
> extremely difficult to define what is and what is not derech chibah when it
> comes to a handshake and it is therefore, the consensus of the poskim to be
> stringent in this matter (6). Under extenuating circumstances, e.g., one
> would lose his job were he not to shake hands with a female customer or if,
> by refusing an extended hand, one would publicly humiliate a prominent
> personality, there are some poskim who find some room for leniency to
> return a handshake, if the hand is proffered in a manner which is clearly
> not affectionate (7). All poskim agree that one must do whatever he can to
> avoid being caught in such a situation.
Just a couple of points that require further clarification:
1. Giving reasons like "An innocent handshake may lead to a casual embrace; a
harmless introduction may blossom into a full-blown illicit relationship" can
be counterproductive. One could (and we see OJ's that do) extend this to
forbidding any interaction with or seeing the opposite sex.
2. A definition of "whatever he can" (e.g. is one prohibited from taking a job
that involves customer interactions in general society? If not, why not?).
KT
Joel RIch
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <carl.singer@...>
Date: Mon, Sep 10,2012 at 02:01 PM
Subject: Gender Relationships
Martin Stern (MJ 61#34) paints several scenarios of interest.
> Question: If a lady fell and the only way to help her up requires touching
> her, may a man (literally) give her a hand?
I do not pasken -- BUT I would reply unequivocally that any man who would
delay in providing needed aid is an Am HaAretz (yes, this is a strong response
-- it is meant to be).
> Question: May one accept change from a cashier if he is concerned that his
> hand will touch hers in the process?
This is often an avoidable situation -- one simply needs not put out his
hand. I recall recently at a kosher store the female clerk extended her
hand to give me my change, and I simply didn't reach out. Perhaps I wasn't
dressed as "frum" as other patrons -- but she then with a puzzled look on
her face realized the situation and put the coins atop the counter. In a
non-Jewish environment one can simply not reach out or make sure both hands
are occupied (say holding the item just purchased); if necessary, specify,
"Please place the change on the counter."
> Question: Is it ever permitted to shake hands with a woman? Is there a
> dispensation to do so if otherwise one would suffer a substantial loss or
> would embarrass the woman, possibly causing a chillul Hashem?
I know an esteemed Rabbi who although he will not initiate a handshake,
will reciprocate lest he embarrass the woman -- I believe this is an
essentially sound approach. Not to try to set up a hierarchy of avayros --
but I would think that (publicly) embarrassing another of God's children is
far worse than shaking hands.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Meir Shinnar <chidekel@...>
Date: Tue, Sep 11,2012 at 12:01 PM
Subject: Gender Relationships
Martin Stern (MJ 61#34) quoted from this week's Weekly Halacha Discussion by
Rabbi Doniel Neustadt:
> Question: Is it ever permitted to shake hands with a woman? Is there a
> dispensation to do so if otherwise one would suffer a substantial loss or
> would embarrass the woman, possibly causing a chillul Hashem?
>
> Discussion: As mentioned earlier, physical contact between the genders is
> strictly forbidden when it is an expression of affection. When it is
> clearly not so it is permitted. Shaking a womans hand in a social setting,
> e.g., at a wedding or in order to establish a friendship or a personal
> relationship is strictly forbidden according to all views and at times falls
> into the category of yehareig vaal yaavor.
I question his assertion of "ALL views".
> Even if the woman extended her hand first, one must not shake it; rather one
> must decline in the most sensitive and gracious way possible. The concern
> that she will be embarrassed if the man does not shake her hand is of no
> consequence; it remains strictly forbidden (5). There are, however, some
> situations where a handshake is offered as a matter of protocol, such as an
> introduction to a customer or an employer, to a doctor or to a distinguished
> politician. In these situations, the handshake is not a sign of affection,
> friendship or a personal relationship and would, theoretically, be permitted.
> Still, the poskim are in agreement that one must do whatever he can to avoid
> shaking hands under these circumstances as well. This is because the yetzer
> hara for arayos is overwhelming. An innocent handshake may lead to a casual
> embrace; a harmless introduction may blossom into a full-blown illicit
> relationship. It is extremely difficult to define what is and what is not
> derech chibah when it comes to a handshake and it is therefore, the consensus
> of the poskim to be stringent in this matter (6). Under extenuating
> circumstances, e.g., one would lose his job were he not to shake hands with a
> female customer or if, by refusing an extended hand, one would publicly
> humiliate a prominent personality, there are some poskim who find some room
> for leniency to return a handshake, if the hand is proffered in a manner
> which is clearly not affectionate (7). All poskim agree that one must do
> whatever he can to avoid being caught in such a situation. All of these
> halachos apply equally to men and women.
Rav Neustadt is entitled to pasken how he feels, and his psak may even be the
most common one in the haredi community today, and people can follow the posek
of their choice. However, to argue that this represents all views - and that
everyone agrees that, e.g., shaking hands at a wedding is "strictly forbidden
according to all," is being mevaze talmide chachamim of far greater renown than
him (something that truly is strictly forbidden according to all views) and
requires a forceful mecha'a (protest).
One reason that we follow later authorities over earlier is that the latter knew
the earlier ones. Rav Neustadt may choose which authorities he follows - but if
he is ignorant of major other opinions, it affects how one views him as a posek
(even if one agrees with his eventual choice of poskim).
For example, my Yekke friends told me that they were at a wedding when Rav
Gelley (who had shortly before replaced Rav Schwab zt'l) refused to shake hands
with women, as against the practice of Rav Schwab zt"l and Rav Breuer zt"l -
and this caused a commotion. Shaking hands was common in several communities -
so it was not "strictly forbidden according to all views".
I would go further. Someone who argues that handshaking is halachically
forbidden according to his posek - that is something that we can respect.
Someone who argues that there is an actual sexual content to handshaking - is
quite problematic.
There is an element of Hillul Hashem involved - which is also directly related
to our ability to function in the larger world. The world at large may (barely)
understand that we have certain limits and things we can't do - and tolerate it
based on pluralism. However, if the reason is not viewed as religious, but
based on giving hyper-sexual content to common social gestures - that will not
be tolerated (and even viewed as morally problematic) - and directly affect the
toleration of Orthodox Jews. Some may remember the Ethicist column in the NY
Times Magazine, where a woman refused to do business with an Orthodox agent,
because he wouldn't shake hands, and the resulting brouhaha. Imagine the
reaction if the Orthodox response was that I can't shake your hand because it
has a sexual content.
Meir Shinnar
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 61 Issue 35
