Not losing Daas Torah

DY: I was not calling anyone dishonest. I was saying that they were utilizing a Halachic tool that the Chassam Sofer endorsed while fighting reform. Namely, that one can make a Mitzvah/Issur under attack seem stronger than it really is. If people are trying to undo a D’rabannan but wouldn’t dare touch a D’Oraisa, tell them it’s D’Oraisa. So when MBP came under attack from reform (for no reason), suddenly opinions popped up that it’s an Ikkar part of the Milah or that it’s a Halachah L’Moshe MiSinai, etc. I would agree with strongly fighting the government anti-MBP movement. That is similar to what reform did because it lacks a proper understanding of Milah before attacking to it. But I do feel that using these sources to defend from Frum people who want to replace MBP with a tube or such lacks an actual understanding of the sources themselves. I would contend that the Maharam Shick never intended for Talmidei Chachamim to ever actually think that MBP was a HLM.

Here is the Chasam Sofer’s letter:

(The hebrew is not in a copyable/pasteable formant so this is the translation, printed in Hakirah, and available on their website)

Shevat [5]597 (=1837).

Peace, goodness, long days and years of life to my friend, my student, the Rav etc., R. Eleazar S.G.L. Horowitz, may his light shine, Head of Beit Din in the capital city Vienna.

Your valuable [letter] [So] patience under pressure [produces strife]

Moshe ha-Katan Sofer of Frankfort-on-the-Main

” I’ve seen you previously acknowledge there is no evidence of harm from MBP.”

Actually there is. It just isn’t clear how MUCH of a risk that it is, and whether it can be contained. Agudath Israel deliberately misinterpreted a University of Pennsylvania study by claiming falsely that it showed that MBP was safe, and nobody in the frum community has been willing to do the right kind of study to prove whether or not it is safe or not. (This would requiring testing mohels, mothers, and babies.)

Here is what the UPenn study concluded:

” Neonatal HSV infection can cause severe morbidity and death, so mitigating potential risks for infection is critical. Current evidence suggests that direct orogenital suction during ritual circumcision was the likely source of infection in recent cases that resulted in significant illness and death. Future research using cohort or case-control designs that fully capture all of the relevant data are needed to more rigorously examine this association.”

(Such studies are not hard to design but they would require cooperation from the frum community.)

This is what the earlier version concluded (the version AI misinterpreted):

“Neonatal infection with HSV-1 carries a risk for potentially severe morbidity, including the possibility of death, so exposure to infection should be carefully considered. The available evidence indicates that circumcision with direct orogenital suction may be a risk factor for infection, but this evidence base is small and significantly limited. Hopefully, future studies will provide additional evidence on this and other risk factors for neonatal HSV-1 infection.”

As you can see this is NOT a statement that MBP is totally safe.

Charlie:

Correct, the Penn study was not a statement that MBP is totally safe. However, the study pointed out that while the evidence from the four studies (in the updated version there were six) under review is consistent with HSV-1 being transmitted via the mohel (e.g. every mohel that was tested, tested positive), there is not enough evidence to demonstrate a causal link. In the four studies combined there were only 22 babies (in the updated version there were 31). In a few of the cases it could not be verified that MBP was performed. In some of the cases the mother was not tested, or tested positive, which leaves open the possibility that the mother was the source. There were several other limitations delineated in the Penn study. So there does seem to be a strong case against mandating consent forms since there is very little documented evidence that MBP causes HSV-1. That being said, it is obvious that it is POSSIBLE for HSV-1 to be transmitted via MBP, and a large portion of the population can transmit it. Which is why all the studies recommended against it. The only claim I can hear against Agudah or others who quote the Penn Study to justify MBP (since I am unaware of a specific instance where anyone said or wrote that the Penn Study shows that MBP is safe) is that if they only quote the part about the limitations of the studies, then laymen (who will probably not actually read the studies and had they actually read the studies might decide not to do MBP) might be given the impression that there is no reason to have any concerns with MBP.

Sam, are you responding to me or to DaasYohid?

I dont think it was the reform, but rather the maskilim, I dont remember all the details, but its something like this

A Rav wanted to make a reasonable change to something for a good reason (I forgot exactly what it was though) and he wrote to the Chasam Sofer. It turned out the Maskilim wanted the same change and were lobbying the government to make the change. The Chasam Sofer forbid the change because he felt allowing it would have given the Maskilim a victory on this issue.

“Interestingly, the C”S, you say, holds you can exaggerate to fight reform, yet doesn’t do so regarding metzitzah.”

Because the Chasam Sofer wasn’t fighting anyone.

The reform and Hasklah are related but not the same. The reform came from the Haskallah. Some Maskillim were secular and I think in this particular case the Maskilim went to the government rather than claim some religous idea

I don’t. R’ Moshe Feinstein zt”l also held that metzitzah is only done for medicinal purposes.

DY: I think it’s M’vuar from the way the Maharam Shick explained things that that’s what he was doing. Everyone knows an Acharon (or even a Rishon, really) can’t be M’chadesh a Halachah L’Moshe MiSinai. He chose calling it a HLM and not Stam a D’Oraisa/D’rbannan so that people who knew how to learn would realize what he’s doing.

PAA: There’s a risk in plain ole milah too. Are you suggesting we advise parents of newborns that milah “might not be so safe but halachically it is worth the risk”? If you’re to argue the risk is miniscule (as there’s no data supporting otherwise), so is it with mbp.

hereistheplace:

If someone would deny that a surgery presents a risk then I would have the same problem.

Thank you, PAA.

The HLM he refers to is not mitzvah related, it is sakanah related. He also says he is not being mechadesh it, he sources it in the Gemara. I don’t think you need to say that he exaggerated, I think this point is clear. It’s not in the category of shiurim, chatzizin, and mechitzin; it means we have a mesorah of the proper medical procedure which trumps contemporary science’s views, and he proves this from the sugya.

Even if we accept Sam’s premise that it’s an obvious exaggeration, at least we see where he’s coming from from his opening paragraph. Is there the same kind of “hint” in the other sources? If not, we must assume that at least those sources are literal.

“PAA: I agree with that.

Wow, 2 posters here have reached common ground!!! This calls for a celebration!!!”

Which part are you agreeing with? Because I got the impression that you were advocating against MBP, whereas I am just advocating that all the facts be publicized so people can make an informed decision. But if you are actually agreeing with me then I’ll have to dig up my champagne.

“But I still don’t get how he is reading the gemara.”

Fun ah kasha shtarbt men nisht. S’iz besser tzu bleiben by’m ah kasha vi tzu zogen ah krumer teretz.

If we hold that by a Sakana we make a Yom Chol, then Rav Papa has no proof from the Mishna. The reason we do this Refuah is because we are already doing Refuos.

If we assume there is another reason for Metzitza then what Rav Papa is saying is that since this part is even done on Shabbos it must also be because of Sakanah. This is why he didn’t mention the other stuff.

It seems like in the times of the Amora’im they must have already had issues with Metzitza.

Not really. In a weekday we go back on all Tzitzin but not on Shabbos. ????? ???? it is separate from the actual Mitzva of Mila.

The Avnei Nezer says my argument:

???? ???? (??”? ?”?) ??? ?’ ??? ??? ????? ??? ???? ??????? ??’ ????? ???????? ???? ???’ ???? ??? ??’ ??? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ???’ ????? ??? ????? ???? ???? ???

Although see the teshuva in its entirety:

http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1345&pgnum=369