Not losing Daas Torah

Home Forums Bais Medrash Not losing Daas Torah

Viewing 35 posts - 51 through 85 (of 85 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1033138
    Sam2
    Participant

    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.

    #1033139
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    I can’t comment on the C”S or Mahara”m Shick, which I haven’t seen inside, but some of the sources predate reform, plus those who follow their tradition have the right to take the sources literally.

    #1033140
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    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

    #1033141
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    So I did accurately portray what Sam meant (albeit without all the fancy Hebrew terminology).

    #1033142
    charliehall
    Participant

    ” 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.

    #1033143
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    Yes, and I think he is probably exaggerating the extent of any such license.

    #1033145
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    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.

    #1033146
    Sam2
    Participant

    DY: Nope. Not the letter I was referring to. It’s a letter to the Maharatz Chayes and can be found in the back of the T’shuvos in most editions, I think (maybe in the back of the Chiddushim on Shas?).

    #1033147
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Sam, are you responding to me or to DaasYohid?

    #1033148
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    I’ll look bl’n.

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

    Yet, the others, who we don’t have any record of allowing exaggeration, are the ones say there are non-medicinal reasons, and you are postulating that they are exaggerating to fight reform.

    I really think it’s far-fetched to take it at less than face value.

    #1033149
    zahavasdad
    Participant

    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.

    #1033150
    DaMoshe
    Participant

    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!

    #1033151
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    “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.

    #1033152

    “I dont think it was the reform, but rather the maskilim”

    How are the maskilim and Reform different people?

    #1033153
    zahavasdad
    Participant

    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

    #1033154
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    DaMoshe,

    1) An inconclusive study suggesting that there might be a small chance is not the same thing as a small chance, and we don’t know what the C”S would hold.

    2) Why do insist that the C”S is the only acharon whose opinion counts?

    #1033155
    DaMoshe
    Participant

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

    #1033156
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    “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.

    #1033157
    Sam2
    Participant

    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.

    #1033158
    DaMoshe
    Participant

    PAA: I agree with that.

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

    #1033159

    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.

    #1033160
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant
    #1033161
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    hereistheplace:

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

    #1033162

    PAA: That being your response, you agree there ought be no impediments to either milah or mpb but that it should not be denied that both contains a risk. That is a change in tune from your earlier comment that I quoted where you seemed to imply that parents should either not do mbp or be advised it is not so safe (something you did not suggest for milah itself). In your most recent comment you limit the application to not denying there is a risk.

    #1033163
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    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.

    #1033164
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    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.

    #1033165
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    “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.

    #1033166
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Although the Maharam Shik discusses the Chasam Sofer’s letter, he doesn’t seem to be aware that the Chasam Sofer said that Metzitzah is not part of the milah – indeed from the very gemara that the Maharam Shik proves that it’s a halacha l’moshe misinai. Also I don’t know how you can read the Gemara’s question if you assume that Metzitza is an integral part of the milah: ??? ?? ??? ??? ????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ??????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ???. If metzitza is an integral part of the milah then obviously we would be mechalel shabbos to do it. Now DaasYochid seems to be saying that the Maharam Shik isn’t saying that metzitzah is a halacha l’moshe misinai; he is saying that it’s a halacha l’moshe misinai that not doing metzitzah is a sakana. But I still don’t get how he is reading the gemara.

    #1033167
    Joseph
    Participant

    “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.

    #1033168
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

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

    #1033169
    HaLeiVi
    Participant

    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.

    #1033170
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    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.

    #1033171
    HaLeiVi
    Participant

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

    #1033172
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    We go back for everything that is meakev.

    Shabbos 133b:

    ??? ?? ??? ???? ???? ????? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ??????? ?? ????? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ????? ??????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ????

    Rashi:

    ???. ????

    Codified by Maran in the Beit Yosef and Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 266:2

    #1033173
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    The Avnei Nezer says my argument:

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

    Although see the teshuva in its entirety:

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

Viewing 35 posts - 51 through 85 (of 85 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.