Talk:Brit milah

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Judaism Portal Brit milah is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles.

Project Judaism To-do: edit purge watch Here are some tasks you can do: Requests: Jewish and Biblical Units of Measurement or some such name, to include material of Ancient Hebrew units of measurement but also Talmudic units and use in Halacha (a la the Hebrew Wikipedia article he:מידות ומשקלות תורניים) Collaboration of the week The current Orthodox Rabbinical Biography Collaboration of the Week is Rabbi Chaim Michael Dov Weissmandl. The current Judaism Collaboration of the Week is Zealotry. Translate Please note that in many instances, projects related to Torah study proceed much faster in Hebrew than in English. Mikraot Gedolot (rabbinic bible) at Wikisource in English (sample) and Hebrew (sample). Mishnah at Wikisource - Hebrew text with translation and commentary; there is also a Hebrew version. Shulchan Aruch at Wikisource - Hebrew text with English translation New projects Mikraot Gedolot Project at Hebrew Wikisource Megillot Mikraot Gedolot Eikhah Copyedit: see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Rival Biblical views Cleanup: Jewish mythology - needs to be rewritten to be inline with our other mythology articles. Expand: Wikiversity: School of Jewish Studies. Part of the new open content university, Wikiversity. Stubs: Category:Judaism stubs, Category:Tanakh stubs Update: Portal:Judaism is WikiProject Judaism's frequently updated portal. You can help make this the best portal on Wikipedia. Look at the talk page to see how you can help.

Contents 1 Seen two Brit milahs 2 Possible origins of the Brit milah 3 metzitzah 3.1 Sources for Haredi practice 4 control of sexuality 5 anti-circumcision movement 6 New Page: Brit-Dam 7 Kvatter 7.1 Input from Dabljuh 8 Problematic paragraphs in 'By Mouth' subsection 9 Undue weight 10 Removed line. 11 Milah l'shem giur 12 Reform, Reconstructionist, and Humanistic Views 13 Reason 14 More information about the controversy in New York about metzizah b'peh 15 Undue weight? 16 Anti-Circumcision Movement material

[edit] Seen two Brit milahs

As a Jew I have been priviliged to personally see two Brit milahs (Jewish ritual circumcisions) up close, and it was a different sort of thing. No panic, little pain, and the infant was happy again in under one minute. People who have been to many of these events inform me that the two I saw were standard. RK

Three cheers for shock! 86.142.209.236 18:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I've seen many more than two, and what you describe is routine. The boy usually stops crying very quickly. As for shock, for most of the ones I remember, the boy seems no less attentive than he did prior to the bris; of course, at eight days old, their attention and perspication is not well developed yet :) . -- Avi 04:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible origins of the Brit milah

Jewish circumcision is a form of human sacrifice that originated from the earlier custom of child sacrifice. jaknouse 01:44 Apr 23, 2003 (UTC) (paraphrased)

That's not true. RK (paraphrased)

Genesis 17, accords the ritual of circumcision as physically symbolic of the spiritual covenant between God and the Hebrews. The Bible, in its totality, is an absolute rejection of paganism and pagan practices. Wherever possible, it seeks actually to root out pagan practices; at other times, it seeks to invest less savage and objectionable pagan rituals with more spiritual meanings. Why not destroy all vestiges of paganism? Another good question, the best guess at which I can hazard is that some practices were so rooted in antiquity that preventing their implementation was nigh impossible; giving these acts new meaning, however, was the best possible solution, then. This begs another question: Now that society is more advanced, why don't we scrap these pagan accomodations, like circumcision. The answer, I beleive, is that the new spiritual meaning has so taken hold by this time, that it actually gives Judaism part of its defining characteristics. Specifically, the circumcision ritual has for some 3800 years related Jews spiritually to God; to uproot it at this time would be to rip away part of Judaism -- something we rabbis are loath to do. Thus, we keep the ritual of circumcision to this very day.

Egyptians, Moabites, and Ammonites utilized the circumcision ritual. Jeremiah 9:24 reports this to be so. Only the hated Philistines are described in the Bible as the "uncircumcised". Thus, we can see that circumcision was indeed a widespread practice in the Ancient Near East. So what did we Jews do to this time-honored sex rite?

By day eight, every male child has had a chance to experience one full Shabbat of life, a sort of spiritual completeness. As a physical mark of that completeness -- since our celebrating Shabbat indicates our acceptance of God as Creator -- we have adopted the rule of circumcision on day eight.

Jews have circumcised since the time of Abraham -- if we are to take the Bible literally. (Even if we date the practice from the time of the canonization of the Five Books of Moses by Ezra the Scribe in 444 BCE, it is still nearly 2500 years old!) Circumcising your son at eight days of age is a concrete linking of your family to an Ancient faith community and Peoplehood. Even shorn of its socio-religious meanings, this act connects your family to something long-lived and important. And what can be better than having roots -- especially in a post-industrial age where rootlessness and alienation abound. - Sparky 09:19, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's historically accurate that ancient Semitic tribes practiced human sacrifice of infants and children, and I can quote at least two explicit examples from the Bible (Abraham and Jephtha). It's also historically accurate that circumcision was, at the time, a huge ethical step forward in replacing an extreme human sacrifice with a minor one. jaknouse 02:18 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC) (paraphrased)

That's an anti-Semitic claim. RK (paraphrased)

Even if Jaknouse wrote some tribes - he is still missing the point. The bris does no harm. It's not equivalent to female circumcision which is a fear of infant women's potential sexuality.

[edit] metzitzah

How is metzitzah like sucking out snake venom, a rare medical emergency? The child's blood is not venomous. --Hugh7 04:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Hugh: You've obviously missed the point. Don't you read English? It was obviously meant as an analogy. IZAK 09:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I read English. What point have I missed? An analogy compares two things to imply further similarity. What do these two things have in common? --Hugh7 19:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Viewing the child's blood as equivalent to snake venom is an overextension of the analogy (perhaps deliberate?). The analogy is that both procedures employ suction of a wound to remove foreign matter for prophylactic purposes -- ie, the removal of foreign matter that may adversely affect the patient's health; This is the only intended extent('further similarity') of the analogy; To be fair, the text is too brief and doesn't make clear the connection for anyone unfamiliar with metzitza. To elaborate: In the case of the snakebite, the suction is purposed to remove a life-threatening venom. In the case of the circumcision, the medical purpose is to flush any microbes or infection from the incision site -- the presence of which is less certain or obvious, but has no less potential to threaten the welfare of the patient; If this seems a silly way to do so, bear in mind that circumcision pre-dates every advance of modern sanitation and sterile surgery by more than three millennia -- lacking disinfectant chemicals (iodine and alcohol), autoclaves and ultra-violet sterilization, and most certainly pasteurization, a technique discovered only in last century of so); Thus, the only reasonably sterile substance available with which to cleanse and flush the incision would be the blood itself; Even regular water in oft-times non-potable, let alone surgically sterile. Drawing it out by suction can be viewed as one of the greatest advances in medical science in the ancient world -- winning for jewish ritual circumcision one of the lowest rates of post-operative complication or infection of any surgical procedure in all of history... ancient or modern. This can probably be likened to the use of leeches to draw blood into reattached limbs to keep them alive (I'll explain my analogy): Subjectively 'bizarre' to the modern mind, but nonetheless indisputably effective and scientifically valid. This in no way mitigates the overriding spiritual purpose in the procedure, but merely sheds light on a common-sense aspect of metzitza, and explains the 'point' to the above analogy.

• • I believe the whole discussion of Metzizah b'peh has been given far too much space here. It is an absolute minority who perform the practice, and it is over-represented in this article. I note with some concern that a large number of Neo-Nazi websites have referred to the practice, and the single New York case as some kind of 'proof' for their appalling beliefs about Jewish rituals. I have little doubt the details has surreptitiously crept into this article to lend some form of authority to such arguments. Despite this, the absolute majority of Brits (and there must be tens of thousands annually) are performed in a totally safe and comfortable fashion. Indeed, very few parents of children who have undergone Brit would even be familiar with the issue. As such, the article needs a close review.

[edit] Sources for Haredi practice

Removed source to talk page

<ref name = "NewmanNYT">{{cite news | first = Andy | last = Newman | title = City Questions Circumcision Ritual After Baby Dies | url = http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/26/nyregion/26circumcise.html?ex=1164344400&en=31f8462c34a55f16&ei=5070 | publisher = [[The New York Times]] | date = [[August 26]], [[2005]] | accessdate = 2006-11-23 }} </ref> usually using a sterile glass tube, or pipette.<ref>{{cite news-q |first = Kelly |last = Hartog |url = http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=13676 |title = Death Spotlights Old Circumcision Rite |publisher = [[The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles]] |date = February 18, 2005 |accessdate = 2006-11-22 |quote = Metzizah b’peh — loosely translated as oral suction — is the part of the circumcision ceremony where the mohel removes the blood from the baby’s member; these days the removal of the blood is usually done using a sterilized glass tube, instead of with the mouth, as the Talmud suggests. </ref>

Removed sources to Talk page pending discussion. The NYT simply isn't a reliable source for Haredi religious law, and the Jewish Journal of Los Angelos quote doesn't discuss Haredi practice at all. I suggest using a Haredi source to identify and explain Haredi belief and practice. Not doing so appears highly POV. It seems a bit like quoting the ACLU as the source for an explanation why many conservative Christians favor public Christmas displays or oppose abortion. Why not get the POV directly from a knowledgable authority who holds it? --Shirahadasha 02:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I object to this being termed solely "Haredi". I know Modern Orthodox people who requested sans tube, and many more yeshivish people who requrie the tube used. I think that this "pigeonholing" that is going on is 1) not accurate and 2) implictly creating a bias. Secondly, it would be difficult to get original Halachic sources, unless what you are asking for is pages from She'elos U'Tsuvos or other work of poskim from the past few hundred years. I would prefer using the NYT and such, then having to track down an Ashel Avrohom M'Butchach or a Pri Megadim or a Piskei T'shuva or a Darchei Tshuva or a Tztiz Eliezer or an Igros Moshe etc. etc. Not to mention, that the NYT/Jewish week is more accessible and understandable to the user of wikipedia. 99% of the people reading will not be able to 1) understand the title 2) find the sefer 3) read the language 4) understand the outcome. Wikipedia is not a beis medrash and as such, at times, the secondary sources are preferred to the primary sources. If someone wishes to have a seder in Yoreh Deah, Chelek Bais and Chelek Gimel, gevaldig, but that is not what wikipedia is. -- Avi 03:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

On the first issue, perhaps we could simply agree that there's a better term than "ultra-Orthodox" and I'm open to your suggestions. On the second issue, my concern wasn't at all to insist on halachic teshuvas as sources, but to include sources from contemporary Haredi people explaining their position in their own words -- perhaps statements from Agudath Israel of America spokesperson Avi Shafron or similar that would be more accessible to outsiders -- rather than relying exclusively on outsiders to explain the viewpoint. It's not my viewpoint, but that's beside the point. --Shirahadasha 04:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] control of sexuality

With regards to the "control of sexuality" theory, I moved the relevant quotes from the circumcision article because I think they're better placed here. Obviously this leaves the article unbalanced - Ideally, we'd want similar quotes from those who think this explanation is bunk. Martin

Martin/Euridice? It is pure bunk. Sex with one's wife is considered a mitzvah. Double points if done on the Sabbath. What seems likely is that someone was trying to sell non-Jews that sexual pleasure was lessened without the hood. As a circumcised male and a Jew - I'm pleased I don't have to deal with smegma. My wife is pleased as well. I won't share what my distinguished Law professor cousin calls uncircumcised penises. Good cover if youngsters are out sowing oats.

I really don't care if non-Jews misunderstand the Akedah; The actual understanding is that God inspired Abraham to stop human sacrifices from ever happening as instructed in the Noahide Laws. I think Larry Gonick's take on it is closer to the truth. - Sparky

Is it coincident that the most sensory neurons in the penis are located where circumcision takes place? Check out http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/cold-mcgrath/ It has good representations.

Mainmonides and many other sages have claimed that circumcision reduces pleasure, and they thought that was a good thing. --Hugh7 04:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Hugh old chap, you are not going to convince anyone that Maimonides was "wrong". By the way, what's so bad about getting people to curb their over-endowed lusts? In any case, circumcision hasn't stopped Orthodox Jews from having lots of kids -- so something must be working right, right? IZAK 09:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Izak old chap, you contradict yourself. And "getting people to curb" is not the same as "curbing", nor is it self-evident that everyone (male) is over-endowed with lust lifelong, or that pleasure = fecundity. I agree with Maimonides that circumcision reduces pleasure. As to whether that is a good thing, I retain the right to disagree. --Hugh7 19:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] anti-circumcision movement

It is acknowledged that they have made few inroads, so why give them a whole section? A one line mention somewhere is enough. Delete? - Robert Brookes 21:59, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Especially since they're not approved of by any movement. Maybe a couple of sentences at most. Jayjg 00:24, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Do you want to do the edit? - Robert Brookes 04:18, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Actually I'd rather see more. I'm curious as to what the anti circumscision movement reasons are, it simply says they oppose it and how they get around it. I then want to know "Why" (I can imagine plenty of reasons, but it'd be more educational for their reasons to be put forward). Maybe make it a little less verbose and a little more informative. -Ryu-80.242.32.51 01:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The anti-circumscision movement cites many arguments; some perennial ones are as follows: reduced sensitivity and sexual enjoyment (both partners), infant pain during procedure, 'disfigurement' of penis, unnaturality of the process, labeling it 'child abuse,' 'genital mutilation', etc, and other claims; An example organization is as follows: http://mothersagainstcirc.org Unfortunately, I doubt that you'll be seeing any serious anti-circumcision information any time soon; Peruse the above site to see why -- the information is anecdotal rather than empirical, inflammatory rather than factual, and clearly pure propaganda rather than objectively informational; Simply put, they are lacking in real scholarship and legitimacy. Further, tone and diction on these sites seems to indicate that they are maintained by people far too angry to be objective about anything -- they seem to be people who have experienced the almost impossibly unlikely worst-case-scenario, and have made it their duty to warn the world. And, while I sympathize with anyone experiencing any type of suffering... I can't help but compare it to rare side effects from innoculations -- unfortunate and tragic, but statistically better than the alternative. Another reason why you won't see serious information that counters circumcision is that there's nothing to be found. Changes in sexual enjoyment are undocumented and subjective at best; 'Disfigurement' or 'Mutilation' is truly a matter of one's personal aesthetic preference, so these highly emotionally charged terms prove my above point; That the process is un-'natural' is indisputable... but precisely what aspect of modern human life is 'natural.' -- I would wager (dollars to doughnuts) that serious circumcision complications are less statistically likely than those of any type of piercing, tattooing, cosmetic surgery, hair dye, or even manicure. Labeling it 'child abuse' is merely rhetoric... it could just as easily (and probably far more presuasively) be argued that refusing to circumcise a child and spare them the long-term health benefits associated with circumcision is, in fact, 'child abuse.' The anti-circumcision cause is not a cause... those opposed to circumcision have no need of activism... they only need refuse to cut off the foreskins of their sons. Problem solved. Here's a counter-anti-circumcision site, to round it out http://www.circumcisioninfo.com/circ_record.html this one is reactionary, clearly spun pro-circumcision, but somewhat less inflammatory. As for the need for an anti-circumcion section, your guess is as good as mine... probably the small victory of a vocal minority... without at least acknowledging the dissenting voice, wikipedia leaves itself open to allegations of bias. If wikipedia can have a pro-pedophilia section in it's pedophilia listing http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/pedophilia then I can certainly tolerate an anti-circumcision section. Much like the organizations referenced there, a website does not a cause make -- nor legitimacy -- much less ethics. Clearly, it's easy to see which way I spin on this issue.

[edit] New Page: Brit-Dam

Please visit Talk:Brit-dam and add your two-cents.

Those who have been active on this article would be the best to give constructive suggestions and edits.

—  <TALKJNDRLINETALK>     20:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kvatter

I've noticed the section about Kvatter, and it says the origin of the word is unknown. In german, there is an outdated term that translates into Godparent, Gevatter.

I don't know which one roots from which one, but phonetically, the relationship is there. Dabljuh 11:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I think its clear from this that the sorce as "kavod tier" is ludecrus and should be edited.

Also "The traditional custom is to honor as the Kvatter a young newly-wed couple (without children of their own yet) as a merit for having a baby." is false. This is not the traditional custom it is a new thing done by some. The traditional custom was and still is for many to honor the grandparents or rabbi with it. Originally Kvater went together with Sandek. Also why is only Kvater mentioned and not other kibudim such as Sandek?

I agree about "kavod tier"; I know that I've read that it comes from the German Gevatter.Benami 03:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad I could help you. Bit more: "Vatter", appears to be an outdated way to write Vater, (father) and Gevatter more literally could mean either Co-father, or "only formally and honourably called so father", but seems to be strictly connected to the function of a Godparent. Plural form is Gevätter, and its meaning goes into the direction of (male) "elders". There appears to also be the even more outdated term of Gevatterin, which would refer to a female. Note that the spouse of a Gevatter or a Gevatterin would be a Gevatterfrau, the wife of a Gevatter, or Gevattermann, the husband of a Gevatterin.

Also compare to Geschwister which used to mean sister (modern german: Schwester) and is still in contemporary use but with the slightly different meaning of siblings, or Gebruder which is a somewhat uncommon, dated, but still familiar term for "brothers" (Bruder). Note that all these terms merely imply a somewhat familiar, close relationship, and not necessarily a blood relationship, apart from the purely modern usage of geschwister. Dabljuh 06:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Input from Dabljuh

These comments about the origin of "kvatter" from the original Germanic word/s by Dabljuh are excellent and very perceptive and probably deserve to be included in the body of the article. What do others think? IZAK 07:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

No offense, but I'd like it better if it were sourced to avoid OR. A native speaker of a language is not necessarily an expert on its history. It shouldn't be that hard to find supporting documentation. Benami 11:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Is this any help? It's confusingly worded, but does make a link. "Later, Ashkenazic Jews, used the word which in German means "godfather" because this is essentially what the Sandek was. This word is "Gevatter" of Yiddish "Kvatter."" [1]

Kvatter is not "essentially what the Sandek [is]". A square is a rectangle, a rectangle is not a square. Tomer^talk 20:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problematic paragraphs in 'By Mouth' subsection

The 3 paragraphs at the end of the subsection Brit milah#By mouth regarding the statements of Rabbi Chaim Chizkiya HaLevi Medini need citation, rewriting, or removal. In their current uncited form it's unclear if they are direct quotes or paraphrases - they also include misspellings and several grammatical mistakes that make them difficult to understand.

I personally lack the knowledge of the position of specific Rabbi necessary to make edits; could someone with a better perspective take a look? In my mind citations and corrections to the spelling and grammar (assuming that these are paraphrases) should be the bare minimum effort accorded to these claims. Dbratton 19:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference, Bloger, but the section in question is still very unclear. Is this a direct quote, or are you paraphrasing the statement by the Rabbi? The two problematic paragraphs are the ones that go from "He tells the story . . ." to " . . . which was the custom with all halachic rulings intended for the public." Is the reference you listed available to the general public so that other editors can have a look and help clarify what it contains? Dbratton 18:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I just pulled the "by mouth" section. Some of it may be right and feel free to revert parts of it that are. Blogger is an anti semite troll who was here for a few weeks. See the "total true jews" discussion where he was trying to fake being Satmar,,, so there is no reason to give benefit of the doubt on that one. jbolden1517^Talk 02:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, I didn’t write the entire article except for one part and the one who wrote it is responsible for citation which he gives very clearly in my opinion.

And if you are not satisfied with the citations he gave make a request for more instead of deleting it and attacking personally and not even in the right direction since I didn’t write it.

The part I wrote is quoted from the books that I mention in the reference and is public for everyone to see for themselves.

I understand that you cannot read Hebrew given your poor knowledge of Judaism as is proven by your not knowing that metzitzah is a vital part of brit milah.

BTW your accusation’s are slanders and completely false if you don’t like my opinion that’s your problem and is not a reason to go wild.

Bloger 17:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bloger,

In this instance, I think I agree with jbolden in temporarily removing the Metzitzah section. The entire section is rather unclear and unreferenced, especially your additions. I understand that you're quoting a published work, but it appears that your English skills aren't quite up to the task of clarifying exactly what is said and how it's phrased. There's nothing wrong with that, of course, but it is contributing to the misunderstandings.

Is it possible for you to make your references available for other editors to look at? An independent online source would be very helpful, since the book you mention isn't widely available.

I do agree with you that the Metzitzah section is important information, but in its current state it's difficult to understand and is not supported by references in any way. It would be best if someone with personal knowledge of the subject could rewrite the section from scratch.

For now, I think it's best to remove the problematic section and replace it with a summarising paragraph, then have it filled back in by knowledgable editors who can make it more understandable. In the meantime, we should all take a deep breath and remember that the only goal here is to work together to make the information provided as accurate and informative as possible. :)

Dbratton 18:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I have a photocopy of the book and if you tell me how I will gladly make it available.

The entire concept of Metzitzah is clearly put out in several news sources as sited in the article.

Bloger 21:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bloger,

Unfortunately, I can't tell you how you can make your photocopy of the book available since I don't know what facilities you have access to. You'll have to work this out on your own. Once you do find a way to provide this reference I'm sure everyone will be happy to have a look at it. Dbratton 22:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I can e-mail it to you

Bloger 22:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Dbratton requested on my talk page that I review the sections of Brit milah that are currently being disputed. I have only a few points to make:

1. Metzitzah is a real verifiable part of the brit milah ritual
2. I have reviewed much of Bloger's edits and I have no reason to believe that he is an anti-Semite. I would not be surprised if he is satmer, but that would only indicate that he has minority opinions about the current State of Israel. As this article has nothing to do with Israel I see no reasons for his edits to be discounted. (And even if his edits were about Israel still they shouldn’t be discounted as Satmer is a notable minority opinion).
3. I do not know whether the section regarding the Chatam Sofer's pasak is true as I have not looked them up. Nevertheless I believe that they are. Having sources that are hard to look up is not the same as unsourced.
4. The parts added by bloger could be written better. Nevertheless, it is only appropriate to remove sourced additions if you believe that they could never be improved by anyone, otherwise correct them yourself or leave them for someone else to improve. I do not believe that these paragraphs are unsalvageable.
5. personally I think that much of the section should be cut, as Wikipedia does not need to deal with halakhic exegesis. I think that a sentence "Whether Metzitizah is obligatory is a matter of halakhic dispute" is enough. There is no need to go into all of the back and forth (did the Chatam Sofer write that? did he mean it? etc), because in any event the full scope of the dispute cannot be presented. Jon513 12:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Can someone explain to Jbolden1517 that he’s off his tracks. he keeps on deleting the entire article about Metzitzah because he doesn’t like my edits about an organization on a complete different subject, and he cant get it thru his head that I didn’t write the article except for one part (even if I did he’s wrong on deleting it because his personal feelings) he doesn’t now anything about brit milah as is evident of his deleting of the entire section and yet feels comfortable in editing it.

Besides he keeps on attacking me and others with slanders attaches and then deletes the complains from his talk page to make it looks nice and clean (check out the history)there should be a consequence for people like that who put there own filings above the concept of putting useful info out as is the goal of wikipedia

Bloger 20:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Bloger, visit Circumcision for links that confirm the existance of this procedure. I don't blame people for not believing that this is for real; I had difficulty with it myself at first. Hang in there dude. Nokilli 08:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

To User:Humus_Sapiens, the wording here is not my own. This is what I found when I first visited this page, when I created the entry in Circumcision. Whether it is sensational wording or not is beside the point; this is what happens. This is the truth. Now I would ask you to consider that Jewish children are dying because of this procedure. I see here that User:Bloger is being accused of anti-Semitism for bringing this information to light. Consider that by publicizing this procedure it will hopefully someday be abandoned, and that as a consequence of that, Jewish babies won't die or be infected with sexually transmitted diseases ever again. In other words, less Jews die my way than yours. Nokilli 08:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The source used states "the practitioner, or mohel, sucks the blood from the wound to clean it"; that is the wording in the article as well. Please do not revert sourced statements in favor of unsourced ones. Also, Wikipedia is not a forum for activism. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Nokilli it’s me bloger:

Firstly, you got me completely upside-down on my position on metzitzah. I never intended to be an activist by bringing anything to light in my writings because that is not what Wikipedia is all about I just added info on the issue, and it shouldn’t be taken as an endorsement or a protest of the issue.

Secondly, for the sake of the truth, to proclaim that quote “Jewish children are dying because of this procedure” is not right, since its not been proven in an open way for everyone to see, instead the NYC health commissioner wrote so without giving any proof. Moreover, the NYS health commissioner recently released a statement in which she very clearly says that there is no proof beyond speculations in some medial journals on the above accusations and on that basis, she let metzitzah go on undisturbed.

Bloger 22:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually if you read the citations you will see that it has been established that this one boy died because of the "procedure". It stands to reasons that many, many thousands of boys have died over these past several thousand years because of this practice; I think it is important that people be made aware of it so that it can be abolished. Nokilli 07:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The above is a total violation of WP:NPOV. The procedure's methodology is in the article. Writing it in such a way as to "abolish" it is counter to all Wikipedia stands for. -- Avi 11:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV only applies to articles. Given the number of times you accuse people of violating WP:NPOV, one would think that you would have bothered to read it just once. Nokilli 07:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I was discussing your edits to the article in light of your statement here. That should have been obvious. -- Avi 12:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for your activism; please stop replacing properly sourced information with unsourced POV. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

See previous remark, WP:NPOV applies only to articles. Everybody here is an activist, especially you. The fact of the matter remains, the mohel sucks on the baby's penis. This is the way the information was originally presented on Wikipedia, and by an unbiased editor. The only reason you and Avi chose to change it was because you didn't like what I had to say on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and that's on the record. Nokilli 07:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The information in the article is quoted directly from reliable sources; please stop violating policy by inserting unsourced POV material. Also, please stop speculating and fabricating regarding other editors; that is a violation of WP:CIVIL. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

That was WP:NPA. When have I ever discussed anything you have done on the I-P conflict? For that matter, have I even edited an article that you have on the conflict? I do not recall any such. By making allegations such as you have, you are making it difficult for me to continue to try and deal with you on a civil basis; not to mention you lose credibility. -- Avi 12:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Undue weight

Jon513 just left a message on my talk page asking for more detail here. I'm trying to prevent this from becoming a personal attack and more importantly this isn't even an issue that interests me, I ran into this article almost by accident. Jon513 seems to be a real editor but was also an advocate for keeping Torah True Jews Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/True Torah Jews which was unquestionably a fake. So I'm still suspecious.

I'm not disagreeing that mouth to genital contact may still occur in traditional communities. If some minor (as a percentage of population) Jewish groups use mouth to genital contact that's no more representative of Jewish practice in general than the mouth to genital contact in Coin Locker Babies is representative of Japanese conduct. The focus of this article should not be on obscure practices but rather on how the practice generally done in a mainstream way. 100 years ago the Jewish encylopedia wrote an article on this practice [2] and they spent about 1% of the time addressing mouth to genital contact. So yes the problems I have with this article are fundamentally the same problem as the one with Torah True Jews. There are Jews who do all kinds of craziness and believe all kinds of crazy things [3]. So what? Wikipedia is supposed to document high quality verifiable sources. The material at the very least is unbalanced Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight, and comes from original sources (that is direct quotes from Rabbis) WP:OR.

I continue to believe this is a problematic. I think the Jewish encyclopedia coverage is far more representative of the issue. So I don't want to hear about how some rabbi in some work that's not quoted very often made a series of comments about a small part of a procedure and thus 1/3rd of the article should be discussion his position. jbolden1517^Talk 15:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I now think I know what jbolden 1517’s problem is I’ll try to explain so he can understand.

1) The word “metzitzah” in today’s day does not necessarily mean mouth to genital contend.

The English translation of the word means suction, and it is done in a brit milah to suck blood from the wound its believed to be a heeling method as is written in the Talmud, So much so that it may be done on Shabbat, when anything considered work (and this is) not directly involved in life or death is forbidden, but this is allowed given its healing power.

Until about 150 years ago “mouth to genital contend” was unanimously accepted to be the only way to apply the heeling called “metzitzah”.

At that time, there were those who had a problem with “mouth to genital contend” so they came up with a solution to use a glass tube that is placed on the wound and the mohal sucks the other end in order to extract blood. They clamed since the blood is being extracted anyway why go through the trouble of putting the mouth directly to the wound.

Others came with a different solution, why at all involve the mouth since the goal is to extract blood apply an absorbing materiel to the wound and that should do the job.

The point being, that whatever method used “metzitzah” is done in every brit (at least in orthodox quarters) the only difference is in which way it’s done.

For example in Hasidic quarters (and a lot of orthodox non Hasidic as well) it’s applied by “mouth to genital contend” the most strict way of doing it, its not confined to satmar or any other group within the Hasidic population. So its not as you put it some maniac in some rural aria has some crazy tradition that’s not noteworthy it’s a widely practiced thing.

On the other hand in more modern quarters it’s applied in one of the other ways mentioned above but “metzitzah” is done in every instead.

2) in dismissing the “chasam sofer” as being “some” rabbi in “some” work that is not quoted you have again shown yourself as not knowing anything about Judaism given the fact that the “chasam sofer” is considered one of the biggest rabbi’s ever to live in every corner of religious Judaism his word is considered the most revered and respected it has been said about him “from Moses to Moses there was none like Moses” meaning that from the time of “maimonides” (rambam) till him there was no one as great as him (which is the same as was said about maimonides in respect to Moses of the bible)

(BTW, I appreciate that you have conceded the fact that the issue doesn’t interest you so why bather editing a subject not known to you and not interesting you why not leave it to editors with knowledge and interest in the subject)

Bloger 21:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Now that sounds the answer an orthodox Jew would give about a ritual question. If you had provided those kinds of answers during the Torah True Jews debate I wouldn't have nearly so worried you were really white power. Anyway you may get a kick out of knowing that expression means something very different to liberal Jews. For them from Moses to Moses their were none like Moses" is: between Moses (of Sinai) and Moses (Mendelssohn) there was no one like Moses (Maimonides).

Now can you explain to me why you feel the need for this to take up a 3rd of the article? More importantly how do you address the issue of original research? jbolden1517^Talk 23:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

1) The reason its imported enough is that writing an article about “metzitzah” without talking about the “chasam sofer” and his ruling on the matter is like writing about baseball and not mention Babe Ruth, or like writing about the landing on the moon and not talk about Neil Armstrong, even better talking about the founding of the USA and not pay tribute to George Washington.

Since in his time and on his words the entire debate of changing the way this vital part of the ritual is conducted took place and each side triad having this great sage baking there way of practice.

2) About the concern of original research as I looked up the WP:OR this is what I found:

“This policy in a nutshell:

Articles may not contain any previously unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position.”

now since this is not “previously unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments” given that its written in books written and published more then 100 years ago from very famous people I don’t see why they violate the original research policy.

3) Thank you for giving me my faith back and taking me off the hostile nation list.

Bloger 02:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed line.

"As circumcision opponents might allege."

Nice try guys.

[edit] Milah l'shem giur

This procedure is done for an adopted child in Orthodox Judaism, but the child of a nonJewish mother who is not giving the child up and is intending to raise it is another matter. Who says this is a halakhic procedure? Such a claim needs a source. Whose POV is it? --Shirahadasha 05:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

-- In this Chabad-oriented forum, people claiming to be Mohelim are saying that such a practice is not permitted and that they are regularly asked to do this and regularly refuse. This is clearly a controversial matter within Judaism, Wikipedia shouldn't take a position, we need to cite sources and indicate who says this is permitted and who says it is forbidden. ("If the father is Jewish and the mother is not Halachically Jewish, I refuse to perform any proceedure. As an agent of the Beis Din I will do a Bris on a Ger only once the Beis Din directs me to do so.") --Shirahadasha 05:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Also see this source: [4] This seems to be a difference between Orthodox and Conservative Judaism. Best, --Shirahadasha 05:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I've attempted to do some cleanup but statements are left that I believe are factual errors or opinions that aren't universally recognized. I haven't seen a requirement that the ceremony be performed only before the biological parents and the Beit din, and since Orthodox Judaism does this for adaptions the biological requirement seems impossible. Likewise, the claim that circumcising beyond 30 days is surgical malpractice seems implausible, given that conversion circumcision is sometimes performed on adults.

[edit] Reform, Reconstructionist, and Humanistic Views

A lot of statements are made on these views including alternative ceremonies. Could someone supply WP:RS sources for these views e.g. statements of or publications by Reform (etc.) organizations or prominent Rabbis? --Shirahadasha 22:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reason

Removed to Talk page per WP:NPOV@Undue weight:

The 1st-century Jewish philosopher Philo stated that circumcision "represents the excision of the pleasure of sex, which bewitches the mind". A similar view is voiced by the 12th-century Jewish scholar Maimonides, who once argued that one of the purposes of the Brit milah was to reduce sexual behavior and to weaken the sexual bond between man and woman (Guide for the Perplexed part III, chapter 49).

One undoubtedly had to go through thousands of commentators and hundreds of reasons to find two who gave this reason. This is not a common reason in Judaism. Emphasizing it as the sole reason given gives undue weight. This reason could be given as (a) a one-sentence discussion after some paragraphs on traditional reasons, or (b) as part of an argument made by opponents of circumcision. I suspect the latter is what is really going on, and if so then Wikipedia should reflect this. --Shirahadasha 13:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. Good catch. Dbratton 13:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More information about the controversy in New York about metzizah b'peh

I have added information, most but not all of which appears in the general Circumcision article. I have been advised that it fits better here. Michael Glass 00:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I edited it for timeline, to combine citations (the Newman article is quoted numerous times), and to move the RCA reference to the tube section. Also, what exactly is the point of bringing Bloombergs meeting on August 2005, if subsequent to that the city issued an then dropped an investigation? ANyway, this is not about NYC politics, but about the dangers of Metzitzah without a tube from a mohel who has not been screened for HSV. -- Avi 00:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again. I put this material here at your suggestion. I followed your suggestion and now you turn round and define some information as not relevant! The controversy about metzizah b'peh was in New York and involved the politics there. And the politics there was that the people practising metzizah b'peh were not prepared to compromise, and they used all their political skills to get their way. That's why this information is both appropriate and relevant. So please stop playing games. Quit censoring relevant material. Michael Glass 01:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is completely your opinion that “…the people practising metzizah b'peh were not prepared to compromise, and they used all their political skills to get their way,” and as such is WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Adding material to imply that there was nefarious political backroom deals is also a violation of WP:NPOV/WP:NOR unless you have a reliable source that says that. All the NYT article (which is referenced four times) says to this point is

Pressure from Orthodox leaders on the issue led Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and health officials to meet with them on Aug. 11. The mayor's comments on his radio program the next day seemed meant to soothe all parties and not upset a group that can be a formidable voting bloc: "We're going to do a study, and make sure that everybody is safe and at the same time, it is not the government's business to tell people how to practice their religion."

– Andy Newman, NYT

This was soon after the event, and does not imply any more than they wanted assurances that the practice would not be forbidden out-of-hand. Further, we bring Frieden's and Novello's opinions from 2006, much more recent. Frieden is pretty clearly against the procedure. I can see no other reason to add the above paragraph, other than to cast the parties practicing the procedure in a nefarious light, which is a violation of WP:NPOV. Correct me if I am wrong. -- Avi 03:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I'd just like to point out that this section is getting quite long, and is really only a small detail in the history, religious significance, and contemporary views on Brit milah taken as a whole. If an extended discussion on this one issue is desired, perhaps it should be moved to its own article to avoid giving it undue weight in this one. It could get a link and brief summary here. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

As Metzitzah B'peh is viewed by many as an integral part of a Bris Milah, it must be mentioned here. However, if it is unwieldly, I guess it can be spun off summary style. -- Avi 04:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Metzitzah is certainly a feature, but all the details on the controversy that happened in New York and what city official said this and what rabbi said that -- that's a separate issue. Perhaps this controversy should have its own article if it is desired to discuss it at length. --Shirahadasha 05:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Avi, the reason the political controversy should be mentioned is that decisions about metzizah may have been affected by political considerations. This is a normal part of politics. Removing the information that the ultra-orthodox are a formidable voting bloc is censorship. Michael Glass 20:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is how the Jewish Week dealt with the issue:

As The Jewish Week put it recently, “some fervently Orthodox” mohelim have insisted upon retaining this ritual, and the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and the Bloomberg administration “have agreed not to ban this practice after vigorous lobbying by New York’s fervently Orthodox community.” This despite warnings by health officials that this practice can and apparently has led “to the potentially fatal danger of transmitting herpes to vulnerable newborns.”

[5]

I don't mind if the issue is discussed in its own article as Shirahadasha suggested. However, I don't see why it couldn't be mentioned briefly but succinctly in this article. Michael Glass 10:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Undue weight?

The section on metzizah b'peh in my opinion, puts undue weight on how, what, where and when certain rabbis said about metzizah. I believe that instead of this:

In addition, Rabbi Chaim Chizkiya HaLevi Medini the Sdei Chemed printed a 50 page section called Ma'areches Hametzitzah, also claiming the practice to be Halacha l'Moshe m'Sinai, quoting R' Yehudah Assad and others. He also elaborates more on what prompted the Chatam Sofer to give the above ruling:^[1] He tells the story, that a student of the Chatam Sofer - Rabbi Elazer Hurvitz, The author of responsa Yad Elazer (This incident is quoted in responsa 54(?))- needed the ruling in defense to a law of the government in Vienna, his place of rabbinical authority - which sought to ban bris milah completely if it included Metztitzah b'peh, because of the concern of spreading disease to the baby, so he asked the Chatam Sofer to give him permission to do Brit milah without metzitzah b’peh. and when he presented the defense in court they marked down his words and published it as if the Chatam Sofer gave it as a general ruling. He then adds, nevertheless it is my opinion that the Chatam Sofer never even wrote this letter it is a forgery in my opinion and even if the letter was written by the Chatam Sofer he surely didn’t give it as a general ruling, given that it was not printed in his book on halachic guidance which was the custom with all halachic rulings intended for the public. Included in Ma'areches Hametzitah is a pronouncement by several hundred noted Hungarian and Russian Rabbis, not to change the procedure.

the article carries a short statement from the Rabbinical Council of America on the practice. I contend that the details above are ponderous, obscure and of doubtful relevance to the general reader.The rest of the information about the rulings of the Rabbis could also do with a rewrite. Michael Glass 10:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Once again, this is a complex issue, both as a matter of religious law and as a matter between the Haredi community and external society. Fairly covering it undoubtedly requires some length to present the multiple points of view involved per WP:NPOV. The Rabbinical Council of America is weighted towards Modern Orthodox Judaism and various Haredi rabbis often disagree with its views on various issues, this being one. This issue has many angles. It is perhaps a good example of the practical impact of philosophical differences between the Modern Orthodox and Haredi -- Orthodox Judaism is sometimes thought of as monolithic and this is an example of its diversity. It may also be an example of the role of religion in contemporary society. I believe these issues are good reasons for splitting the issue off into its own article, with only a very brief mention of the existence of multiple views and a controversy here. Otherwise covering this issue fairly could easily weigh down and sink this article. Best, --Shirahadasha 00:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point. A specific article on Metzizah b'peh might be the way to go. It won't be an easy path because of the nature of the subject matter. However, at least we might be able to deal with the issues without 'undue weight' being used as an excuse for stifling discussion. Michael Glass 13:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Circumcision Movement material

Moved the following here:

The human foreskin has twelve known functions, such as to contact the G Spot. [6] It is the opinion of some researchers that foreskin can be a tool for intercourse. In the book Sex as Nature Inteded It author Kristen O'Hara argues that foreskin is a natural gliding stimulator of the vaginal walls during intercourse, increasing a woman's overall clitoral stimulation and allowing for the achievement of female orgasm more often and in shorter periods of time. [7] It is therefore believed by some that the absence of the foreskin and gliding action makes it more difficult, not impossible, for a woman to achieve orgasm during intercourse. This, among other reasons and health concerns, have made the medical and ritual practice of circumcision controversial.

This material may be -- we have no source to say -- an editor's personal essay explaining why the editor is personally opposed to circumcision in a way that links together potentially original arguments. We don't know -- at least not from sources available -- if any published arguments actually cite these sources or the reasoning behind them as reasons for opposing the Jewish ritual of Brit Milah, which doesn't necessarily have the same arguments or reasoning for or against as circumcision in a purely medical context. See WP:OR, WP:NOT#OR. Best, --Shirahadasha 13:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)