[CD Hanks]

From yesterday's Journal News in Westchester, NY:

http://www.thejournalnews.com/newsro...cumcision.html

Hasidic circumcision rite debated

By GARY STERN
THE JOURNAL NEWS
(Original publication: February 6, 2005)

The suctioning of blood by mouth during ritual circumcisions has long been dropped as a common practice by most of the Jewish world, but many Jews and non-Jews alike were shocked to learn in recent days that the practice remains standard in many Hasidic communities.

The largely unknown practice, which has been used during the Jewish circumcision ritual for thousands of years, came to public attention last week when New York City health officials said that a Hasidic rabbi and mohel from Monsey was suspected of transmitting the herpes virus to three New York City infants he had circumcised. One of the infants died in October.

Rabbi Yitzchok Fischer, a prominent Hasidic mohel, suctions blood orally during the circumcision ritual, known as a bris, in order to remove impurities. He is suspected of passing the oral herpes virus, which generally produces cold sores but can be passed to another person's genital area.

Rockland County health officials said they would do their own investigation.

"It is very, very rare for the mohel to suck out the blood himself," said Rabbi Tzvi Hersh Weinreb, executive vice president of the Orthodox Union, which represents Orthodox congregations in North America.

"The mohalim I speak to in our community say they use latex gloves and a glass tube for suction, and they take every precaution so they do not come into contact with the baby's blood and the baby does not come into contact with their blood," Weinreb said. "This is for the protection of the baby and, frankly, for the protection of the mohel, because one never knows what the baby might be carrying from the parent."

This past August, the journal Pediatrics published a study that concluded that the oral suctioning of blood during a ritual Jewish circumcision, a practice called "metzitzah," puts infants at risk of contracting herpes and should be eliminated. The study looked at eight cases of infants who contracted herpes after oral suctioning during a bris.

Twelve researchers, including seven from Israel, also considered the religious and cultural traditions behind the practice. They noted that the Babylonian Talmud, completed in the fifth century, required oral suctioning in order to remove health risks to the infant. But later rabbinical authorities, the study found, modified their approach as they developed new understandings of hygiene and disease transmission.

"The same consideration that led the Talmudic sages once to establish the custom of the metzitzah for the sake of the infant could now be applied to persuade the mohel to use instrumental suction," the study concluded.

One of the researchers involved in the study was Rabbi Moses Tendler of Monsey, a professor of ethical medical practices and Talmudic law at Yeshiva University, often called the flagship of modern Orthodoxy. Tendler last week said the Talmud requires that blood be sucked from the wound during circumcision, but not that it be done by mouth.

Rabbi Gerald Chirnomas from Boonton, N.J., a prominent mohel in the Greater New York region, said the practice of orally suctioning blood was the norm for centuries.

"When a person cuts a finger, what's the first thing they would do?" he said. "Suck out the blood so any possible contamination is sucked out. The rabbi applied the same thinking to this practice."

Health concerns about the practice are known to have come up from time to time, Chirnomas said. During the mid-19th century, for instance, the Polish government forbade the practice when a popular mohel had a tooth abscess and an infant died.

By the time Chirnomas, a Conservative rabbi, was trained as a mohel decades ago by two Orthodox mohalim in Jerusalem, the practice of oral suctioning had been largely replaced by the use of a glass tube to suck away the blood. These days, Chirnomas, who has performed some 14,000 ritual circumcisions, uses a gauze pad to soak up the blood.

"Using the mouth was done for thousands of years," he said. "But it is important that people realize that within the general Jewish community, this practice is not followed. Within the very Orthodox community, the Hasidic community, they do not accept this change. Traditions die hard."

Rabbi Avi Shafran, director of public affairs for Agudath Israel of America, an advocacy group for Orthodox Judaism, said that while the practice of suctioning blood by mouth is rare, Hasidic communities that believe it is important are unlikely to give it up.

"In most communities, it is not done this way, but in many it is a religious tradition of many generations," he said. "I understand that what may have happened in this case is exceedingly rare. Pediatricians in communities where this is done as a matter of course have told us that they have never seen a case like this, ever. Jews have been circumcising their sons for quite a while, and this is getting attention because it is so unusual."

Two of the infants who contracted herpes after being circumcised by Fischer, including the one who died, were twins. The double bris was performed on Oct. 16. New York City health officials later discovered that another boy tested positive for herpes after being circumcised by Fischer in 2003, according to court papers.

Fischer is not accused of any crimes, but in a day when there is great concern about sexual molestation of children, many may wonder how an adult can legally put his mouth on a child's genitals. Vincent Bonventre, a law professor at Albany Law School, said that courts often allow exemptions to general laws for religious practices.

"Cases are more difficult when there is a direct conflict between law and religion, like when a religion requires an act that is forbidden by law," Bonventre said. "When the government's interest is not paramount, the courts generally hold that you can't require an individual to violate their religion."

[Lefterer Guy]

Holy.

****ing.

Shit.

[OldManMac]

Well, at least we know what's on your mind.

[Sven G]

Well, maybe it's time also for Jews to modernise their behaviours...?

Anyway, probably they imported the barbaric circumcision ritual from the Egyptians (not clear why, but that's unimportant) - so little if nothing is lost from a "Jew culture" point of view, if this makes sense, if they decided to abolish this ritual alltogether (and not only the most absurd aspects, as above).

Personally, I think that (some more progressive parts of) Jewish culture is very interesting and has brought us some of the brightest minds in history on this planet - but it should really be time to make a quantum leap, and, so to say, try to disjoin the positivities from the (too ancient) negativities.

Same for the so-called "routine circumcision" still practised in the US and elsewhere (some tribal cultures?): total nonsense, and contrary to the even most elementary rights of the most undefended human being: the infant (or the more "powerful" adolescent - even worse, maybe).

P.S.: I discovered some of these things, almost by chance (see a previous thread), in this site: http://nocirc.org . It's time to move on, really...

[brapper]

....you know that feeling you get in your stomach when you know something's seriously wrong...I have that feeling right now.

[CD Hanks]

Originally posted by KarlG:
Well, at least we know what's on your mind.

WHOA DUDE THAT'S LIKE NOT COOL DUDE **** YOU SURE SHOWED ME BY GOLLY



edit: hahaha were you hitting refresh the whole time waiting for me to reply? I think you're being awfully sensitive on this matter too.

[OldManMac]

Have a guilty conscience, I see.

[Cody Dawg]

I saw that and it was disgusting.

JUST DISGUSTING.

I say that they should lock that guy up in jail where he can do that to his heart's content.

I don't care if he's a rabbi or not. He's a sick bastard.

[Millennium]

The rite itself is an important tradition to Judaism, and even among the majority who don't do it orally anymore it is widely recognized as nonsexual in nature. That said, the guy is certainly guilty of criminal negligence or even reckless endangerment, if nothing else. What the hell was he thinking, doing that with a canker sore?

Oh, and please check your 'Michael Jackson converts to Judaism' jokes at the door, folks...

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Oh, and please check your 'Michael Jackson converts to Judaism' jokes at the door, folks...

It's a dangerous precedent though, ain't it? Letting religions bend the law? Separation of Church and State shouldn't allow this, should it?

What's to stop NAMBLA from forming their own religion and having similar rituals?

Or... ...I've just found an additional gospel (Joseph Smith did it, why can't I?) which requires that I be armed and drunk at all times?

Dangerous, if you ask me.

[Cody Dawg]

I totally agree with Sherwin.

The guy should be charged with manslaughter or something.

A$$hole.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
It's a dangerous precedent though, ain't it? Letting religions bend the law? Separation of Church and State shouldn't allow this, should it?

It has, in the past, been considered a lesser evil than forcing religions to change their practices. Whereas allowing this might violate that separation, banning it certainly would.

What's to stop NAMBLA from forming their own religion and having similar rituals?

Among other things, the fact that NAMBLA would recognize it as sexual in nature, since this is, after all, what they're for. Keep in mind that a bris actually runs on a pretty strict timetable: it is done when the child is eight days old. Even NAMBLA doesn't see any sexual possibilities at that age.

[Sven G]

... Do we still need those kinds of (oppressive and nullifying) religions? That's the problem, maybe, in our "postmodern" world...

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Sven G:
... Do we still need those kinds of (oppressive and nullifying) religions? That's the problem, maybe, in our "postmodern" world...

Define 'oppresive' and 'nullifying'. Is it just the idea that morality may be definable by something other than fashion?

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by Millennium:
It has, in the past, been considered a lesser evil than forcing religions to change their practices. Whereas allowing this might violate that separation, banning it certainly would.

...

Whereas I find this ritual strange, on a legal (and practical) level I think it would be hard to ban it. But IMHO there are ways to put legal barriers that can at least prevent the spread of diseases like herpes: require regular health exams for people who insist on this practice.

Enforcing hygienic standards like this would be legally possible and it would be a compromise both sides can live with.

[itai195]

Originally posted by Sven G:
... Do we still need those kinds of (oppressive and nullifying) religions? That's the problem, maybe, in our "postmodern" world...

How is the religion 'oppressive and nullifying?'

[Sven G]

Good question (and maybe we are going to the roots of problems, here): only fashion?...

Probably, it also depends on what projects individuals and societies have: everyone for her/himself, passively accepting everything from the past - or, maybe, building a better present and future for everyone, with a minimum of common sense (see respect for human body integrity, etc: which some religions seem to lack)...?

Total relativism or reasoned relativism? What's the state of enlightenment reason, BTW? Is it still felt in day to day life?

There are many questions to be posed, indeed - but personally I would put the (physical and psychological) integrity of human beings at the very first place. Everything else can be discussed and pondered, if there's something to be reached...

Today's problem is, probably, that there isn't anything to be reached ("end of history": sic!) - and, thus, there's almost no incentive to really bother about better ways of living...

P.S.: Anyway, I think that your so-called founding fathers would roll in their graves if they knew that innocent children were so brutally mutilated (circumcised), almost due to the state, and not only religion...!

[Spliff]

Really, they should be called un-Orthodox Jews.