“PAA (what is your preferred form of address?):”

Did something I say prompt this question?

But you can address me however you wish; I’ll decide whether to acknowledge it on a case-by-case basis.

I don’t have a problem per se with different versions. It’s just that I had only seen the other version and you suddenly are mechadesh a new version – I wanted to point that out. Perhaps you were just misquoting or something. Then again it’s also possible that the version I referenced was a misquote, or that both versions are misquotes, or that you each independently thought of the same joke.

Randomex:

You seem to be assuming that I object to the posting of a joke that has previously been posted (somewhat recently). However, that was never my objection. If you look back at my original post, my only point was that you said over the joke differently. http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/good-jokes/page/32#post-535299

“I understand the whole “argument” is a joke, however, this thread is for real jokes (which will make people happy/laugh.”

You misunderstand. The “argument” is a real argument. The joke is embedded within the depths of the argument. It is a real joke which will make people happy/laugh. But only if they get the joke.

“Do you like the way I took advantage of the -1 years glitch?”

How do I know you didn’t just predict my response?

crazybrit:

You seem to be discussing one of Xeno’s paradoxes. It would only apply here if Randomex never stopped posting. If you want to discuss Xeno’s paradox(es) you can find me at http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/philosophy-question

“also, you don’t know how to count”

?

Randomex walks into a bar. He wants to steal less than a ??? ????? of beer. So he asks the guy next to him if it’s muttar. The guy responds in the affirmative. As Randomex reaches over to perform the act of thievery the Bartender shouts “you can’t rely on him (the guy that Randomex had asked) – he’s just DaasYochid. As this is all happening PAA shows up. Randomex, who is now confused, says out loud “so what’s the halacha?” at the same time as DaasYochid confrontationally asks the newcomer “who are you?” The newcomer, ever the pragmatist, says “Patur Aval Assur”, thus answering both questions in one fell swoop. DaasYochid says “you aren’t reliable either because you don’t learn iyun”. PAA replies “I think we’ve been through this several times already”. By now a whole crowd is gathered around waiting for someone to throw the first counterpunch. So no one notices Popa Bar Abba sneaking behind the counter and drinking the place clean. To diffuse the tension, someone says “anyone have a joke?” Popa, in his drunken stupor, says “I have a joke. Three retards walk into a bar…” Before he can finish, the assembled mob attacks as one and hangs Popa by his ankles from the ceiling. DaMoshe is called in to sing through the entire High Holy Days liturgy while Popa is forced to listen. Meanwhile Randomex is feeling rather slighted. “Why is Popa always the center of attention?” he asks. So in order to garner some attention for himself, Randomex goes on a crusade against people who continue threads from the ancient past. In reality this is a cover for Randomex who spends all his waking hours reading threads that predate him. As the crowd starts to disperse, DaasYochid points out that any gathering at which the Shidduch Catastrophe is not discussed is a Moshav Leitzim. At this point Popa breaks free and responds that there is no shidduch catastrophe because he is already married to every single girl. By now, everyone has already had enough, and the Moderator, seeing that things are about to get out of hand, presses “edit” and this whole story becomes “Why did PAA and Randomex cross the road?”

“Shouldn’t you have immediately questioned whether I had indeed read every thread/post since I became a user, as I implied by giving the excuse I did for not knowing that post?”

1)?”? ????????? ???? ???? ?? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ????? ?”? ?? ??? ????? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?? (Sanhedrin 91b)

2)The question that I did ask was a better question then the one which you suggest because if I had followed your suggestion, you could have answered that indeed you have read every thread since becoming a user, whereas the question that I did ask was guaranteed to have no answer.

3)But you’ll ask that I should have asked both questions. To that I will respond ???? ?????? ???? ???? ???????? ??? ???? (Tosafos B.B. 5b s.v. Ki) which the Hagahos HariYavetz explains ???? ?????? ???? ????.

The point is that if metzitza is a necessary part of the mitzvah then we would obviously be mechalel shabbos to do it, so the gemara’s question on Rav Papa that it’s pashut that it’s a sakana from the fact that we are mechalel shabbos, is not really a question.

Except when the krumer teretz is to read the gemara like the Chasam Sofer, R’ Moshe, et al.

“PAA: Wow. Are you stalking me? 🙂 I’d barely remembered writing that”

????? ????? ???? ????? ????? ???? (paraphrased from Sanhedrin 99a).

Also I don’t have important things that I’m learning in seminary to occupy my memory space. And did I forget to mention that I have a photographic memory?

hereistheplace (Joseph):

I never said whether or not there are impediments to milah or MBP, or whether or not they should be done. I think people should be aware of the potential risks. When it comes to milah, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that something can go wrong. However, since it is a minute risk and everyone agrees that Milah is a Chiyuv D’oraisa (punishable by kares in fact, although granted, not the father), every Orthodox Jew will still do it. When it comes to MBP, the risks are not as self-explanatory. (In fact I would posit that some people don’t even realize that MBP is being done.) Being that there are halachic opinions that it is not a necessary component of the mitzvah, there are many people who would choose not to do it if they knew of even the slightest of health risks. Therefore, if there is a potential risk, people should know about it.

The Maharam Shik’s Teshuva:

http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1494&st=&pgnum=109

“Patur Aval Assur: So if the study shows that there may be correlation, and more research is needed, it would seem the Chassam Sofer would hold not to do metzitzah b’peh. He wrote that if there’s even a minute danger (which the study shows there is), we should not follow kabbalah on it. Doing metzitzah with a glass tube would seem to be the preferable method from a halachic standpoint!”

I don’t think I ever said or implied otherwise. All I said was that while it is very much plausible that MBP causes HSV-1, there is not enough evidence to prove causation, and therefore there can be a strong case against any law about MBP. That doesn’t mean that I am reccomending MBP. In fact I think part of the problem with the whole situation is that people become so focused on one issue (e.g. defending religious freedom) that they abandon the other issue (e.g. whether there is a concern that MBP is not so safe). It would not be a stirah if someone spent months arguing against the Department of Health in court yet at the same time advises people not to do MBP (or that it might not be so safe but halachically it is worth the risk). I don’t see why all sides can’t keep to their position while acknowledging that there is some amount of risk even though there is not enough evidence to prove causation.

“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.

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.

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

DaasYochid:

I am referring to (and I think this is what Sam meant) the context in which they were written – one has to ascertain whether they were written as a stam halachic discussion, or as a (perhaps polemical) response to a perceived threat against a religious practice. For instance, R’ Moshe’s teshuva was just simply a halachic discussion, and it was really only a tangential discussion, almost like meisiach lefi tumo. But it is possible (and to be clear I am not applying this to any source in particular) that if someone perceived a threat against the religion (or a specific practice of the religion) then they would as a counterbalance, elevate the practice to more than it really is.

“The hashkofos point is the only one that holds any resonance.”

That depends on the hashkafos.

Torah613Torah:

According to the way that I am learning the Gemara there’s not such a connection (which is in fact part of Benignuman’s question on my understanding).