Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 123

Thu, 06 Sep 2012

• 1. Regarding MBP (Dorron Katzin)
• 2. Re: siyum kaddish (David Cohen)
• 3. What?s the Truth about . . . Kissing the Mezuzah? (Prof. Levine)
• 4. FW: RSRH on Metzitzeh bePeh (SBA)
• 5. Reb Chaim Brisker on MBP (Prof. Levine)
• 6. Re: FW: RSRH on Metzitzeh bePeh (Micha Berger)
• 7. Going beyond the norm for Elul (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: FW: RSRH on Metzitzeh bePeh (Harry Maryles)
• 9. Re: FW: RSRH on Metzitzeh bePeh (Micha Berger)
• 10. The Circumcision Controversy in Classical Reform in Historical Context (Prof. Levine)
• 11. Sweetened condensed milk (Lisa Liel)
• 12. Re: FW: RSRH on Metzitzeh bePeh (Harry Maryles)

Below is an article by Rabbi Moshe Zuriel which appeared elsewhere:

The introduction from the website where I found it:

It is a footnoted and well sourced Halachic analysis of the Mitzvah of
Bris Milah and Metzitza B'Peh.

Rabbi Zuriel lives in Bnei Brak and was a close talmid of Rav Ruderman
famed founder and Rosh HaYeshiva of Ner Yisroel in Baltimore. He has
written well over 30 Seforim on subjects ranging from Shas to Tanach
to Mussar to Kabbalah.

After moving to Israel, Rabbi Zuriel learned with -- and became very
close with many Gedolei Torah including Rav Sraya Deblitzky, Rav Shmuel
Toledano, and Rav Friedlander -- the famed mashgiach of Ponovezh.

He also learned with Rav Zvi Yehuda Kook, and was the Mashgiach in
Shalavim. He is very knowledgeable in all areas of the Torah, and very
well informed regarding current events and history. His approach is
an independent one and is solely guided by his understanding of the
the Torah.

The article: 

It is always sad to see dispute and bickering amongst brethren. It is
even more aggravating to see anger and emotional outbursts, bitter
accusations and personal attacks in the public domain. The present
controversy regarding how to do the metzitzah of blood during Bris Milah,
if by mouth or by tube, is a case in point

If we check the Gemarah source [1] and so too the Rambam [2], and the
Shulchan Aruch[3], we see no mention of the "Peh," the mouth. The Hebrew
word for suction is "motzetz" and this can be performed also by the use
of a tube using mouth suction. It is important to precede all discussion
on this topic by "putting everything on the table". We are not discussing
a Biblical Commandment, nor are we referring to a Rabbinical enactment
from the Gemarah's time. We are referring to a hallowed Minhag from days
of yore to use the mouth only.

Certainly the withdrawal of blood is a Rabbinical enactment, but the
direct application of the mouth is only a Minhag. Beyond that, using a
tube by mouth suction is also a utilization of the mouth and should not
to be considered as abolition of the use of the mouth [4].

This understanding is important to know before we clarify what a parent
should decide in cases of doubt.

The world famous Chasam Sofer wrote a responsum to permit using other
methods than the mouth ("Bris Olam", page 216) [5]. The great Rabbi
Shimshon Raphael Hirsh permitted the use of a short tube (Shemesh Marpeh,
page 70). Rabbi Yitzchok Herzog wrote [6] that since the medical experts
claim that there is a danger of infection in many cases, it is advisable
to use a tube. He adds that those who insist adamantly that the withdrawal
should be done by direct application of the mouth "are mistaken and so
too cause others to make a mistake".

The illustrious Rabbi Avraham Kook permitted the use of a tube when in
doubt of infection (Da'as Kohen, 142) [also, see the words of the Aruch
Hashulchan [7] and Rabbi Chaim Berlin [8]]. Rabbi Zvi Pesach Frank
claimed [9] that since the entire purpose of the Rabbinical enactment
of withdrawing the blood from the wound is to avoid infection, this act
being done by the tube is part and parcel of that healing process. May
we add that this would even be a "hiddur Mitzva" since this is even
safer than the personal physical contact of the Mohel to the open wound.

But why is there such a vehement outcry against the usage of the tube? The
answer is that for nearly two hundred years there is fear of Gentile
government intervention making the essential circumcision ritual illegal.
This started in Paris in 1843, reached Germany and Poland and today in
California a small group of "humanists" appealed to the State Legislature
to ban the practice. This move was defeated.

The fear is that if we ourselves admit that this mitzvah could be
damaging to the child, the Department of Health might make capital of
our admission. The second cause of the great emotional outbursts of
resistance to any change in the ceremony is the worry to keep intact
all of Jewish way life, to stay as close as possible to the customs of
our forefathers; to forestall all reforms.

But as intelligent human beings we must always weigh the pros and the
cons. Many medical doctors claim that there is a danger of delivering
the Herpes virus to an infant. As of now, one out of six Americans
bears in his body the latent virus of Herpes. True the potential risk
of life endangerment to an infant from Metzitzah B'Peh is exceedingly
low. However, for the particular parents that this tragedy occurs to
their child it is a tremendous torture. Must not every parent do his
best not to enter this potential risk?

If we are dealing with a Torah law, or at least a Rabbinical enactment,
certainly it is Chassidus to be stringent and rely on "Shomer Mitzva
Lo Ye-da Davar Ra". But we are referring here not to religious law but
to medical advice tendered by our sages, calculated to save the child
from danger. This is not a "mitzvah" per se. If as per modern medical
advice we are doing the opposite, we are exposing the child to danger,
how is this in any way Chassidus? True we should perform Metzizah,
but why by direct contact with the mouth?

Beyond the life or death question, there is another moral problem. Five
out of six of Americans do not bear in their bodies this painful Herpes
virus. How are we justified to expose this infant to that one-sixth of
the population who will eventually suffer painful skin eruptions, twice
thrice or four times during their life? True religiosity is to be extra
careful not to cause chagrin unnecessarily to any fellow creature.

I am aware that knowledgeable doctors have claimed that without absolute
verification, such as DNA tests, we cannot be certain that it is the
Mohel who has transmitted the virus to the infant. Especially so since
there are varied types of the Herpes virus. However this does not mean
that we cannot take into probability, into plausible consideration,
that immediately following the circumcision these infants came out with
the disease. The doubt is still there.

I would suggest that every conscientious father or mother take every true
consideration for the benefit of the newborn infant, and ask the Mohel
in advance to use the tube. And if he denies or objects, they should
find another Mohel willing to accede to the psak of the Chasam Sofer,
Rabbi Kook, of Rabbi Herzog, or Rabbi Frank. True Chassidus is not to
be belligerent but to be intelligent and thoughtful, to be precautious
within the limits of Torah Law.

Why is it that when taking blood samples to be tested in the medical
laboratory, the nurses don nylon gloves so not to be endangered; why is it
that dentists before treating another patient take off the previous gloves
and exchange for a new pair of nylon gloves? Why be backwards? What is
the religiosity involved to make a creed of being against anything that
is modern, to stand stubbornly against any medical advances? How is it
that when someone needs medical attention he chooses the best medical
advice, price being no object.

However, when it comes to metzizah, which according to Chazal was only
enacted due to worry for medical health, there he will stand with fierce
antagonism and wish to remain as we were years ago, using a "no-no"
exclamation as a standard way of life?

The paramount question is, is that what G-d wants?

It must be emphasized that the resolution of this controversy will not
be achieved by government involvement or regulation. Any government
entanglement with the manner in which Bris Milah is performed, would
be a severe blow to the foundation of religious rights and freedom
which is a cornerstone of the magnificent beacon of liberty, The United
States of America. The arguments and facts cited above are directed to
the parents of the infants to be able to decide for themselves, and to
explain why they should not be concerned on a halachic level to use a tube
(if done with a proper suction), since for 180 years, the greatest Torah
authorities [from the time of the Chasam Sofer] have already permitted it.

--



[2] (????? ???? ??? ? ???? ?): "???? ??????? ?????? ?? ?? ???? ?????
?? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ???' ???' ???"? ???? ?? ????? ?? ???? ???
??????? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ???? ????. ??? ?? ????? ???? ??????? ????
???? ????? ???? ???? ??????? ?? ????? ?????? ???"

[3] (???? ???, ??? ???? ?): "???"? ?????? ????? ?? ???? ??? ????????
??????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ????. ??? ???? ????? ???? ??????? ????". ????
???? ???? ???? ??????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???? ??????? ???".

[4] ???? ??????? ???? ??? ??? ??????? (?????? ???????, ?"? ??' ???): ??
??? ?? ????"? ?????????? ?? ???? ???"? ???? ??? ???? ???? ????? ??????
????? ?? ?????? "???? ??? ??????? ??? ????? ??? ". ????"? ??? ???? ???"?
???? (??' 70) ????? ?????? ????? 6.5 ?"?, ????? ????? ??? ??????.

[5] "...???? ??? ???? ????? ??? ????? ??"? ???? ????, ??? ???? ???? ????
?? ????? ???? ??? ???? ????, ???? ???? ??? ??? ??? ??? ?????, ???????
???? ?????? ????? ???? ???, ??? ???? ????? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ??
??????? ??????. ?????"? [??? ??? ?????? ?????] ???? ?? ??? ????? ????????
????? ???? ???? ????, ??? ??? ??????. ???? ???? ???????? ???? ??? ???
?????? ????? ???, ?? ?? ????? ??????? ?????? ??"? ????? ????, ??? ????
(???? ????? ????? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ?????? ??????? ????? ???? ?????)
???? ???? ??? ??????, ????? ??? ????? ????? '????? ???' ??? ???? ??????
????? ???? ??? ????? ??. ?? ?????? ??????? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ????
????? ????? ???. ???? ??? ??? ???? ????"?. ??' ??? ???? ??"? ???"? ??"?"

[6] "????? ??????",)??? ?, ????? ?"?(, ?????? ???"?: "??? ????? ?????
?????? ???????? ????? ?? ?? ????? ?? ???? ??? ???'. ??? ??? ?????
????? ?????? ????????. ???? ???"? ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ??? ??????,
?? ??????? ???"? ?? ?????. ???? ????? ????? ????? ?? ?? ??? ???? ??????
??? ???? ?? ?? ??????? ??? ????? ???? ???? ?? ?????, ??? ???? ??? ???
?? ?? ???? ?? ??? ????. ??? [????] ????? ??? ??. ???'.

??? ????? ??? ???? ????? ??????? ??????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?????,
?????? ?? ???? ????? ????. ???' ???'. ???? ????? ??? ???? ??????? ???????
???? ??"? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ????. ???? ????? ?????? ????, ?????
??? ???, ?? ??? ???? ??????? ?? ?? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ???????? ???
???? ?"? ?????, ?????? ?????. ??? ?? ????? ?? ?? ??????? ????? ????? ???,
??? ??? ????? ???? ????? ???? ??? ?? ??? ?? ????.

???? ??? ????? ????? ???? ???? ????"? (???? ???? ???? ????) ???? ??? ???
???????, ?????? [????? ??????: ?????? ??? ?????? ???????] ????? ????? ??,
?????? ????? ??? ???? ??? ??????? ???????. ??? ????? ???? ?? ??? ?????
?????? ????? ???"? [??? ????? ???, ??? ??? ??' ???-???) ?????? ??????
?"? ???? ???? ????? ?? ???? ?????. ???'.

[7] ???? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ???"? ????? ?' ??????? ?????? ?????? ??
?????? ??????, ?????? ????? ???? "???? ?? ????" (??? ???"?) ??? ???
?"??? ?????" ?? ??? ??? ???? ?????????? (??? ??' ???) ???? ?? ?????:
"???? ?????? ???????, ????? ??????, ???? ????? ?? ??????. ????? ????
?? ???????? ?????? ????, ????? ????? ?????? ??????? ??? ?????, ??????
??? ??? ???? ???. ????? ?????? ??????, ?? ????? ?????? ??? ????? ?????,
???"? ?????, ????? ????"? ?????. ????? ???? ???? ??????? ????"? ????????.

????? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ?????. ???? ?????? "???? ??????" (???? ???
??' ??? ?"? ??) ????: "??? ??? ??????? ??????? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ??
??? ??? ????? ???? ????? ?? ???. ??? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???. ???????? ????
??"? ??? ?????? ???????? ???? ???. ?? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ?? ??? ???
??? ????, ??????? ?????" ??"? ???????. ??? ????? ?????? ??? ??. ?? ????
?????? ????? ??? ?????? ????? ????? ???? ?? ??? ??????? ???????. ????
?? ??? ????, ???? "??? ??? ?????" ??? ???? ??? ???? ???? ????? ????
???"?-???"?. ??? ????? ??"? ????? ????? ????? ????? ????? ???, ???? ????
???"?. ?????? ??? ????? ?? ????? ??????. ??? ????? ???? ????? ????? ??
??? ???? ??? ?? ???? ????? ?? ?????, ???? ????? ??? ?? ????? ??????.

??? ??? ?? ???? "???? ??????", ??? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ?"?
?????? ????? ????? ???? ??????? ??????? ??????? ???? ???? ?? ??? ?????
???, ???? "????? ??? ??? ??????? ?????? ????? ??????? ???? ????? ????
????? ?? ??????" (???? ????, ?"? ??' ????).

[8] ????? ?' ???? ????? (????? ????? ???? "?? ????" ??' 43 ?????? ????
???? ???????) "????? ???? ?? ????? ??? ??? ?' ??????? ????? ????????
????? ???? ????? ????? ?? ?????? ????. ??? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ???????
?? ?????? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ???? ??"? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ???'
???"? ???? ???? ????, ??? ???? [???"? ?????] ??? ???? ?? ??? ????? ????
??????? ????? ???? ?????? ???. ??? ???? ????? ??? ??? ??? ????? ?????
?"?, ???? ??? ????? ?? ???? ???? ???????, ?????? ?????? ???? ????" [???
????? ???? ????? ????? ???? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ????? ????? ????,
?? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ?????].

[9] ??"? ?? ???, ??"? ??' ??? :"?????? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ???"? ?????
???? ??"? ???? ?????? ??????? ???' ??? ????? ??"?, ???? ???? ????? ????
????? ??????? ?"? ????? ??? ???? ???? ???? ????, ???? ??????? ??????
??? ??????? ???. ????? ????? ???? ????? ??????? ??? ?? ?????? ??????
??"? ????? (??? ???). ???? ???????? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??????, ???
?? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ???"? ???? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???????
??? ?????. ??? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ????? ?"? ????? ???, ??? ????? ?????
?????? ?"? ?????? ?? ??????, ?? ????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??? ??? [??????]"...

While we're on the topic of the "siyum kaddish":

IIRC, at a levayah, the long version of the kaddish is said only on days
when Tachanun is recited.  On days without tachnun, a regular kaddish yasom
is said after the kevurah.

Why is this distinction not made at a siyum?  I have never seen the long
kaddish replaced with a regular kaddish derabbanan at a siyum, even on
Shabbos.

-- D.C.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120904/b6a06f62/attachment-0001.htm>

 From http://tinyurl.com/cbzkyn4

Misconception: There is a Talmudic source for the common practice of 
kissing the mezuzah upon entering and exiting a room.

Fact: There is no Talmudic source obligating one to kiss the mezuzah, 
although there may be a source for touching the mezuzah. Kissing the 
mezuzah seems to have been introduced by the Arizal (sixteenth 
century), and is thus a relatively recent custom.

<Snip>

Not all halachic authorities endorse the practice of kissing the 
mezuzah. Rabbi Yosef Eliyahu Henkin in Eidut Le'Yisrael (p. 159) 
objects to kissing the mezuzah (and sefer Torah) with one's mouth or 
even with a cloth (and most likely with one's hand as well).9 Instead 
he prefers the Sephardic, or more accurately, the Georgian (Soviet)10 
custom of pointing and "blowing" a kiss. He offers two reasons for 
this. Firstly, he feels that kissing implies too much familiarity, a 
level of closeness that one cannot purport to have with a Torah or a 
mezuzah. Secondly, he opines that kissing a mezuzah even via one's 
fingers or hand spreads germs, a hygienic-based halachic problem 
mentioned in Shulchan Aruch, OC 170:15.

See the above URL for the rest of this article.  YL


----------
This article is written by Rabbi Dr. Ari Zivotofsky who is on the 
faculty of the Brain Science Program at Bar-Ilan University in 
Israel.  See http://halachicadventures.com/?p=90  for more about him 
and his other interesting articles.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120904/80b71a35/attachment-0001.htm>

He advises a Mohel to refuse to do a bris where the father disallows MB

http://nochemrosenberg.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/r-shamshon-raphael-
hirsch-on-
metzizah.html

Rabbi Seth Mandel sent me the following:

I think I told you that R. Chaim Brisker did not allow m'tzitza 
b'peh; he insisted that the mohel use a glass tube to do m'tzitza.

RYBS said this on many occasions, publicly and privately.  He would 
not allow m'tzitza b'peh to be done on my son; it had to be done 
through a tube.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120905/b2ca979b/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 02:28:16AM +1000, SBA wrote:
: He advises a Mohel to refuse to do a bris where the father disallows MB
: 
: http://nochemrosenberg.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/r-
: shamshon-raphael-hirsch-on-metzizah.html

But RSRH considers using a glass tube to avoid physical contact by
the mouth to be MbP. He and R' Azriel Hildesheimer published a teshuvah
together promoting such a device which implies it's altogether equal. But
what RSRH wrote for the more committed in Shemesh Merapei #55 that
using the tube was inferior, but acceptable. In either case, using a
tube would be a valid alternative, leshitaso, and not "refuse to do a
beris" territory.

I think this whole approach of citing Yekkish and Litvisher sources,
though, to be pointless. There is a machloqes here, and pointing out
that some hold that MbP (direct) is not required doesn't change reality
for those who follow the other tzad. It's not like this is some new
chumrah-of-the-month.

So, from the perspective that holds that MbP is deOraisa, what can one
say that justifies the total abandonment of a mitzvah deOraisa? The only
thing I can think of would be piquach nefesh, but then one would have to
explain why the risk is greater now than in Giv'as haAralos. We have far
better ways of caring for infection, and far fewer germs living in our
mouths than ever before. If the risk now is sufficient piquach nefesh to
justify not doing MbP (given the assumption that it's deOraisa) then how
could HQBH ever have expected Jews of any era to practice it? Was MbP
intended to be like ben sorer umoreh or ir hanidachas and every gadol
from Yehoshua through the acharonim erred in taking a din given just
for learning and followed it lemaaseh?

What exactly do you expect them to believe, given THEIR givens?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Between stimulus & response, there is a space.
mi...@aishdas.org        In that space is our power to choose our
http://www.aishdas.org   response. In our response lies our growth
Fax: (270) 514-1507      and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM)

On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 01:08:50PM -0400, Prof. Levine asked on Areivim:
>> Maybe not attacking people who come to daven is a better idea? Radical
>> concept, I know. Aren't we in Elul? I guess some people use a
>> different calendar than we do....
>
> There is something about statements like this about it being in Elul  
> that bothers me.  Are we supposed to think that we can "fool" HaShem by 
> behaving in a certain way during Elul and then returning to our "old" 
> ways?  It seems to me that behavior and actions are either appropriate 
> and correct from a Torah standpoint the entire year or not at all.

It's a good question, but since the notion of avoiding pas palter and
other such chumeros during Aseres Yemei Teshuvah is well established (SA
OC 603:1 mentions "pas shel kutim"; see also MB s"q 1.) So, I don't think
your sevara is sufficient to upshlug a notion that is practiced the next
10 days by a large segment of Kelal Yisrael with the support of numerous
sefarim.

But it's a logical sevara. We need to find an answer.

I would start with the notion that no mitzvah is to make HQBH happy to
begin with. To quote Rav (Bereishis Rabba 44:1):
    Lo nitenu hamitzvos,   ela letzaref bahen es haberiyos.
    Vekhi mah ikhpas lei leHQBH,
    lemi shechocheit min hatzav'ar
    o mi shoshocheit min ha'oref?

Or for those who had a hard time with a transliteration that long:
    The mitzvos were only given to refine beriyos through them.
    For what does it matter to HQBH,
    whether someone slaughters from the throat
    or someone slaughters from the back of the neck?

Mitzvos are self-shaping excercises. So too are chumeros, going beyond
that which the person believes is required. An excercise can have
permanent effects even if I lack the self-control and commitment to
stand by it 24x7, 365-1/4 days a year.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight,
mi...@aishdas.org        and he wants to sleep well that night too."
http://www.aishdas.org         - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok
Fax: (270) 514-1507

--- On?Wed, 9/5/12, Micha Berger?<mi...@aishdas.org>?wrote:
On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 02:28:16AM +1000, SBA wrote:
: He advises a Mohel to refuse to do a bris where the father disallows MB
:?
:?http://nochemrosenberg.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/r-sh
:amshon-raphael-hirsch-on-metzizah.html

I think this whole approach of citing Yekkish and Litvisher sources,
though, to be pointless. There is a machloqes here, and pointing out
that some hold that MbP (direct) is not required doesn't change reality
for those who follow the other tzad. It's not like this is some new
chumrah-of-the-month.

So, from the perspective that holds that MbP is deOraisa, what can one
say that justifies the total abandonment of a mitzvah deOraisa? The only
thing I can think of would be piquach nefesh...

What exactly do you expect them to believe, given THEIR givens?------------------------------------------
How did they arrive at their "givens"? I have yet to see the Teshuva or
even a Sevara to say that MbP is D'Oraisa. Where is the source for that? I
know that this is what is being claimed - but maybe that that is all it
is?... a claim without an actual source.
Even their oft quoted Maharam Shick who said that the CS only meant it for
one case could not possibly have said that Metzitza w/o using the Peh was
vaild in one exceptional case if it is Chiuv D'Oraisa. That the CS said
Metzitza was vaild w/o using the Peh in even in one case means that it
cannot possibly be a D'Oraisa - even according to the Maharam Shick.?
Maybe the MS felt that it is needed L'Chatchila. But that means that B'Dieaved Metzitza can be done w/o the Peh.?
I just don't buy that they actually believe that Metzitza w/o the Pejh is Me'akev the Metzitza.
Rav Zuriel seemed to say that the MbP is entirely a Minahg and he gave no
hint that there is a dispute about that. He explained why... and brought
several Gedolei HaPoskim of the past who not only Paskined that MbP is not
necessary but that not using a Peh for Metzitza is a Hidur on the Gemarah's
entire intent of Metzitza - clearly stated as Pikuach Nefesh!?
What is their possible counter to that? Other than to say that to just insist that is a Chiuv Doraoisa to use the Peh for Metzitza?
HM?

Want Emes and Emunah in your life? 



Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120905/e6f3294e/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 01:50:11PM -0700, Harry Maryles wrote:
: Rav Zuriel seemed to say that the MbP is entirely a Minahg and he gave
: no hint that there is a dispute about that...

Well, that's what he holds, so yeah.

But it's not so pashut. While the gemara says that metzitzah has a health
benefit, it did not say that metzitzah was instituted FOR the health
benefit. R' Papa just says that because the mohel risked the child's
health, you should dismiss him. (Shabbos 133b)

The mishnah Shabbos 19:2 says:
    Osin kol torkhei milah: molin, upor'in, umotzetzin, venosenin aleha
    asplonis vekamon.

It is interesting that R' Papa talks about a lack of mezitzah, but not
about omitting bandaging nor the cumin (?). Similarly, the Rambam (Milah
2:2) mentions milah, peri'ah, and metzitzah alone. The shu"t Meishiv
Nefesh (2:6) concludes from this that the Rambam held metzitzah was part
of the mitzvah.

The shu"t Avnei Neizer (YD 338) shows how the gemara could be read
either way.

Also, tzitzin ein me'aqvin, so if someone noticed after a Shabbos beris
was complete that tzitzin were left, they have to clean up after Shabbos.
If, however, the tzitzin were noticed before you finished the milah, then
you can continue doing the milah and clean them up then. And what's the
definition of finishing milah? If metzitzah was done. Not bandage and
medicine (asplonis vekamon) -- mezitzah. Another source to conclude
metzitzah is part of the deOraisa.

And if metzitzah were merely bloodletting, why is the machloqes about MbP
and not about metzitzah being superfluous altogether? (In particular, on
Shabbos!) For that matter, one aspect of the debate (we saw when looking
at RSRH) isn't even if MbP is required, but whether using a tzinor
(as opposed to the CS's use of an absorbant sponge or bandage) is still
bepeh! Do we requite letting blood after any other surgery? I therefore
don't think it is being suggested (outside of popularist articles and blog
posts) that metzizah is simply bloodletting, and trivially dismissable.

The Levush Mordechai (#30), notably a Litvak, argues that metzizah bepeh
is so repulsive of a concept, how could anyone think we instituted it
if it weren't a chiyuv? He also leaves open the question as to whether
someone who didn't have metzitzah, which he assumes requires MbP, is an
orel or can he eat from the qorban Pesach! R' YL Diskin makes the same
argument, which the IM rejects (YD 1:223).

Within Qabbalah, orlah is associated with the kusones or of Adam after the
cheit, and thus requires curing via that part of the body that performed
the cheit. I do not have a mar'eh maqom, but I saw this attributed to
a source well before the3 MbP controversy of the CS's day -- R' Avraham
Azulai (Morocco, EY; c 1570-1643, the Chida's gg-grandfather and a talmid
of the Ohr haChaim).

I should also note that while most defenses of metzitzah and MbP in
particular start in the 19th century, this isn't necessarily because
it was a chiddush. Rather, EVERYONE did MbP, and no one questioned its
status until then. Silence came from taking it for granted (c.f. Rama
YD 265:10 telling you to spit the blood into the dirt), not disimissing
it! Veharaayah, Sephardim weren't touched by any of these battles,
and never questioned MbP or even looked to see if alternatives were valid.

My point being... There are two sides to the issue. It's non-trivial,
and it's really not for us on one tzad to tell the other tzad to reject
centuries of teshuvos from their qehillah and others. Doubly so when
the people doing the call for dimissal are the historical innovators.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When one truly looks at everyone's good side,
mi...@aishdas.org        others come to love him very naturally, and
http://www.aishdas.org   he does not need even a speck of flattery.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Rabbi AY Kook

This is the title of an article by Dr. Judith Bleich and it is 
available at http://tinyurl.com/9fvx58l

YL

I have a cousin who is married to a hareidi guy.  She was just told by 
her husband that he was just told by his father that no matter what the 
hechsher, sweetened condensed milk is treif.

Has anyone heard about something like this?

Lisa

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120905/0ce5b491/attachment-0001.htm>

--- On?Wed, 9/5/12, Micha Berger?<mi...@aishdas.org>?wrote:
On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 01:50:11PM -0700, Harry Maryles wrote:
: Rav Zuriel seemed to say that the MbP is entirely a Minahg and he gave
: no hint that there is a dispute about that...

Well, that's what he holds, so yeah.

But it's not so pashut. While the gemara says that metzitzah has a health
benefit, it did not say that metzitzah was instituted FOR the health
benefit. R' Papa just says that because the mohel risked the child's
health, you should dismiss him. (Shabbos 133b)

The mishnah Shabbos 19:2 says:
? ? Osin kol torkhei milah: molin, upor'in, umotzetzin, venosenin aleha
? ? asplonis vekamon.

It is interesting that R' Papa talks about a lack of mezitzah, but not
about omitting bandaging nor the cumin (?). Similarly, the Rambam (Milah
2:2) mentions milah, peri'ah, and metzitzah alone. The shu"t Meishiv
Nefesh (2:6) concludes from this that the Rambam held metzitzah was part
of the mitzvah...

The Levush Mordechai (#30), notably a Litvak, argues that metzizah bepeh
is so repulsive of a concept, how could anyone think we instituted it
if it weren't a chiyuv? He also leaves open the question as to whether
someone who didn't have metzitzah, which he assumes requires MbP, is an
orel or can he eat from the qorban Pesach! R' YL Diskin makes the same
argument, which the IM rejects (YD 1:223)...
My point being... There are two sides to the issue. It's non-trivial,
and it's really not for us on one tzad to tell the other tzad to reject
centuries of teshuvos from their qehillah and others. Doubly so when
the people doing the call for dimissal are the historical innovators.--------------------------------
WADR to the Levush Mordechai, his argument in favor of MbP is a Sevara and
TTBOMK not sourced anywhere in the Gemarah or the Rishonim. The Peh?was
used not because of a D'Oraisa, but because it is obvioulsy the best way of
withdrawing the blood from the wound so it wouldn't become a source of
collected bacteria and ultimately infected. ?
That was the reason they did it ?B'Peh and not because "metzizah bepeh?is
so repulsive of a concept, how could anyone think we instituted it?if it
weren't a chiyuv?"?
But that was before anyone knew that the Peh could be its own source of infection via the herpes virus and possible other diseases transmitted by the mouth.??
You say that "the shu"t MeishivNefesh (2:6) concludes from this that the Rambam held metzitzah was part?of the mitzvah"
What does that have to do with anything??In no way do I say that Metzitza
should not be done. ?Nor is it important to me whether the reason is for
health or not. I agree that it does have to be done and have never said
otherwise. And even though it still seems to me from the flow of the
Gemarah that it is done for health benefits - that is not my issue. Either
way my issue is whether it must be done by the Peh. Where is the Teshuva
that clearly shows that using the Peh is a D'Oraisa??
HM

Want Emes and Emunah in your life? 



Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20120905/b91f8ae3/attachment.htm>

------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 30, Issue 123
***************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."