 |
| Photo Credit: The Forward |
Rabbi Teichtal contacted the Chief Rabbinate in Israel
requesting a response. He got one. From the Forward:
Moshe Morsiano, chair of the Division of Circumcision for the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, emphasized in a letter dated April 22 that there is no justification for avoiding metzitzah b’peh “unless the mohel has a sore in his mouth, or some infectious disease.”
What is interesting about this response is the deceptive nature
of it. (Although I do not believe it was purposely done that way.) From the
tone it sounds like MbP should almost always be done. And that only in the
rarest of circumstances should it be avoided.
I suppose the reason they framed it this way is because of
the centuries old tradition of doing so. But the second part of that letter is
of no less significance. In fact I would say it is the most important part of
it and indicates the exact opposite. It says that MbP should be avoided if the
Mohel has a sore in his mouth or some infectious disease.
To me that tells the whole story. Those who carry the herpes
virus cannot always tell when it is present in the mouth. It is not always
symptomatic in the early stages. A Mohel can have the virus and not be at all
aware of it. To me that says loudly and clearly that MbP should be avoided at
all times. If cold sores can be asymptomatic there is always a risk of it being
there.
It should also be clear from Rabbi Morsiano’s statement that
he too believes that MbP is not a requirement. Or he wouldn’t have suggested
using an alternative method of doing Metzitza under any circumstances.
In an era where so much more is known about transmission of
diseases by the mouth… and where there are strong indications that some babies
have contracted herpes around the time they were circumcised from an infected
Mohel … and where the CDC advises against it, I don’t see how anyone can do
MbP. Even by the Chief Rabbinate’s standards.
The fact that his happened in Germany where circumcision itself
is being challenged is significant. I think it highlights the damage that is
done by equating MbP with circumcision itself as those who are fighting the New
York City Department of health are saying. More than once I have heard that
equation being made. Some accuse outright that New York is trying to outlaw
circumcision. Others either imply it or say that outlawing MbP is a slippery
slope that could lead to outlawing circumcision completely.
If we give the those who oppose circumcision this kind of
ammunition, they will have something to base their accusations that a Bris is a
barbaric procedure that endangers the lives of innocent little babies! No doubt
that is what the anti circumcision activist who filed a complaint in Germany
was thinking. If a Mohel insists on a dangerous procedure that he says is a
religious requirement, he will have a leg to stand on. This is not a leg that
we should concede. Because aside from the tragic results that may occur on a
baby and his family, the impact it could have on Bris Mila itself could be devastating.
Even though there are so many Poskim that do not - including
the Chief Israeli Rabbinate I realize that Chasidim do consider MbP to be a
Halachic requirement. This is why I would oppose any legislation that would
outlaw it. But I do support the NY health department requirement that parents
be informed of the danger honestly. And by honestly I would include the
concession that the chance of infection is indeed very low. But I would at the same
time insist that as low as it is, it is real.
I therefore reassert my plea that the Agudah withdraw its
opposition to this requirement. Because the more we oppose requirements by
experts in the field with no axe to grind against Judaism; people whose
intentions are only the health and welfare of the public - the more we endanger
circumcision itself. The anti circumcision people are no doubt looking very carefully
at what is happening in Germany… and that will certainly influence their actions
here. Eizehu Chacham? Ha Roeah Es HaNolad!
