Strange thing certain Jews do during circumcision


#1

It's called metzitzah b’peh. It honestly shocked me. I'll just post the link to the news article. Please read then see my question below:

foxnews.com/health/2012/03/05/newborn-dies-after-contracting-herpes-from-controversial-circumcision-ritual/?test=latestnews

My question is, how long has this been the/a practice in Jewish circumcision? Was it what was done in the Old Testament? Did Abraham do it? Would it have been done to our Lord? Or is it something that started with the Talmud after the 1st century or something?

Thanks


#2

:eek: that shocked me as well! Seems highly inappropriate. Is this a common practice? :eek:


#3

[quote="James924, post:1, topic:276172"]
It's called metzitzah b’peh. It honestly shocked me. I'll just post the link to the news article. Please read then see my question below:

foxnews.com/health/2012/03/05/newborn-dies-after-contracting-herpes-from-controversial-circumcision-ritual/?test=latestnews

My question is, how long has this been the/a practice in Jewish circumcision? Was it what was done in the Old Testament? Did Abraham do it? Would it have been done to our Lord? Or is it something that started with the Talmud after the 1st century or something?

Thanks

[/quote]

The procedure is mentioned in the Talmud; however, it may have predated it. Ironically, the idea of drawing the blood away from the wound is designed to PREVENT health risks. Still, it is recorded in the 1800's that some infants became ill due to the procedure. The validity of the rite of circumcision does NOT depend on this part of the procedure, and the Talmud verifies this. Moreover, if the procedure is to be performed--purportedly for health reasons--there have been rabbinical rulings that it may be done by using a sterile glass tubing for suction instead of mouth contact. Incidentally, it is conceivable that the mohel who performs the circumcision may also become infected by the baby, if the latter carries the virus. If a baby is suspected of being ill, the ritual may--indeed must--be postponed. If the mohel is ill, he should NOT perform the procedure. It is performed, still by mouth contact, mainly by Hasidic Haredi Jews, and not so much by Traditional or Modern Orthodox, or other forms of Judaism.


#4

Apparently Talmudic.

jewishideas.org/articles/metzitzah-bpeh-oral-law


#5

[quote="meltzerboy, post:3, topic:276172"]
The procedure is mentioned in the Talmud; however, it may have predated it. Ironically, the idea of drawing the blood away from the wound is designed to PREVENT health risks. Still, it is recorded in the 1800's that some infants became ill due to the procedure. The validity of the rite of circumcision does NOT depend on this part of the procedure, and the Talmud verifies this. Moreover, if the procedure is to be performed--purportedly for health reasons--there have been rabbinical rulings that it may be done by using a sterile glass tubing for suction instead of mouth contact. Incidentally, it is conceivable that the mohel who performs the circumcision may also become infected by the baby, if the latter carries the virus. If a baby is suspected of being ill, the ritual may--indeed must--be postponed. If the mohel is ill, he should NOT perform the procedure. It is performed, still by mouth contact, mainly by Hasidic Haredi Jews, and not so much by Traditional or Modern Orthodox, or other forms of Judaism.

[/quote]

Good information. Thanks


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.