The danger of metsita b’peh

By Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel
Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

CHULA VISTA, California — On June 26th, 2012, the District Court of the Federal State of Cologne ruled that ritual circumcision for children as required by the parents, constitutes an infliction of bodily harm to the child, and is therefore—a criminal offense. Fortunately, the Federal Constitutional Court shortly afterward overruled the decision of the lower District Court. At that time, many of us breathed a sigh of relief; we hoped this matter had finally been laid to rest.

Some people cannot resist a fight. There are those among us who imagine themselves to be modern-day Maccabees. Such religious delusion is a source of trouble for us all who eschew zealotry in our times.

For this reason, the debate over circumcision will not die.  The newest controversy concerns the practice of “metsita b’peh,” or orally sucking the blood from baby’s penis after the circumcision has been performed. This custom dates back to Late Antiquity and the ancient rabbis believed that it reduced bleeding. Anyone who has watched old spaghetti-cowboy movies may recall how the hero would sometimes suck and spit out the venom from someone who had been snake-bitten. Modern medicine has long rejected this idea and demonstrated that sucking a wound can actually spread disease and infection.

Here is how the recent German story unfolded.

In Berlin, the chief emissary of the Brooklyn Lubavitcher movement named Rabbi Yehuda Teichtal, invited over 400 of his guests to see the mohel perform metsita b’peh on his son. Unabashedly, Teichtal wanted to make a public statement—that government has no right to tell people how to practice their faith.[1]

The subject of metsita b’peh has become a flashpoint between those Orthodox and non-Orthodox rabbis who wish to modernize Jewish practice vs. the Ultra-Orthodox  (consisting of a consortium of Satmar, Chabad, and other Haredi groups). The most vociferous voice comes from the Chabad.

Here’s a short synopsis that will explain why metsita b’peh has become such an important issue for Jews of all persuasions to understand.

In November 2004, the local hospitals notified the Health Department of three male infants diagnosed with HSV-1. In each instance, the circumcision was traced to the same Mohel, who performed metzitzah b’peh. These infants developed herpes infection in the genital area 8-10 days after circumcision and were hospitalized for several weeks. One baby died from the infection.

In 2005, physicians reported two more cases and both were consistent with infection from metzitzah b’peh. Every case occurred in the timeframe consistent with transmission from metzitzah b’peh.

An unidentified infant died Sept. 28, 2011, at Maimonides Hospital, according to a spokeswoman for the city Medical Examiner, who confirmed the death after a News inquiry. There have been similar deaths in Israel also attributed to mestita b’peh.

One might think that all Orthodox Jewish communities agree with the Chabad, but this is not at all the case. Rabbi Moshe Tendler is the son-in-law of Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, arguably the most important Haredi Halachic scholar of the last forty years. He is a   microbiologist and professor of Talmud and medical ethics at Yeshiva University. Rav Feinstein had complete trust in his son-in-law’s Halachick and medical knowledge as an authority in the field of Jewish Medical Ethics. He often made rulings based on his son-in-law’s observations and experience. When the New York Times asked Rabbi Tendler  of his opinion in 2005, he bluntly said:

The rule that’s above all rules in the Torah is that you cannot expose or accept a risk to health unless there is true justification for it. . . Now there have been several cases of herpes in the metro area . . . Whether it can be directly associated with this mohel nobody knows. All we’re talking about now is presumptive evidence, and on that alone it would be improper according to Jewish law to do oral suction.[2]

Chabad has taken an opposite perspective. A NY Jewish Week writer interviewed the Crown Heights-based mohel Rabbi Israel Heller who offered a rather surprising understanding of human disease transmission. “Our teachers taught us to use our mouths,” said Crown Heights-based mohel Rabbi Israel Heller, who is the official mohel of Methodist Hospital in Park Slope, Brooklyn. “The saliva cleans wounds. God gave us saliva in our mouth to clean things.”[3]

If the Chabad and other Haredi rabbis were determined to win their case in the public forum, they would agree to have peer-reviewed studies prove it safe for all infants—but to date, they have done so. Dr. Tendler co-wrote an article in the 2004 journal Pediatrics that said direct contact posed a serious risk of infection.

Heller’s attitude reflects a much deeper problem. Rabbis among today’s Haredi and Chabad movements take the position that the ancient sages were incapable of erring in matters pertaining to Halacha and science. Ergo, their rulings and legal directives were not subject to challenge, revision—not even by physicians or anyone else. Moreover, these men contend that once the door to change opened even a crack, more change was certain to follow. They also contend that government involvement opens the door for future government intrusions in the private religious sphere. We cannot dismiss the possibility that this issue is really about who has the right to make decisions for the Jewish world—and Chabad believes that its interpretation must reign supreme in all matters of Halacha, since their Rebbe (who has long been deceased) was and still is widely viewed as “the Messiah.”

The scientific ignorance of today’s Ultra-Orthodox rabbis advocating metistat b’ peh is astounding. They would be wise to listen to the words of Rabbi Abraham Ibn Maimonides (1186-1237), for he did not believe that the Sages were incapable of error. Quite the contrary, they were humble enough to recognize when they made errors; often they suspended the finalization of the Halacha because of a given question’s inherent ambiguity. They did not fear criticism from their colleagues—they openly embraced it. Their love for truth mattered more than being right. While rabbinical opinions hold sway only in matters of practical Halacha, in the realm of Aggadah (allegorical and non-Halachic matters), their opinions are not beyond criticism—nor are their views invincible in matters of science. Rabbi Abraham adds:

If a person sets forth a certain theory about something without offering proof, while expecting people to accept it at face value simply because they respect him, this man is sadly mistaken. His attitude is contrary to the Torah and common sense. It goes against common sense because he insists that people accept his opinion without evaluating the veracity of his claims. His attitude is contrary to the values taught by the Torah since the Torah explicitly states, “You shall not act dishonestly in rendering judgment. Show neither partiality to the weak nor deference to the mighty, but judge your fellow men justly.” (Lev. 19:15). In addition, the Torah states, “ In rendering judgment, do not consider who a person is; give ear to the lowly and to the great alike, fearing no man, for judgment is God’s” (Deut. 1:17). Whether it is a theory or a statement expressed by a learned scholar—in either case—this does not prove that the purported claim is true . . . Don’t blindly accept theories just because some author happens to be a great scholar. You should only accept teachings based upon concrete evidence, as my father has said in his commentary. Anyone who is objective and has an open mind will accept this basic truth.[4]

A well-known Chinese curse reads, “Be careful for what you wish for, you might just get it.” The local Jewish community needs to take a hard look and demand from its local Chabad synagogues and rabbis to stop recklessly endangering Jewish children. A loss of a single child to  the act of metzitzah b’peh is reason enough to outlaw its continued practice in Jewish law–especially in light of what we know about modern medicine today. Chabad’s behavior in this arena can best be described as reckless, dangerous, irresponsible and self-righteous.

Regardless how you feel about Chabad, the Jewish public has a duty to confront, chastise, and demand that they stop this antiquated and potentially life-threatening  rabbinic  practice. Chabad has re-opened up a dangerous controversy that could undermine much of their legitimacy as a bonafide Jewish movement.

Notes:

[1] See the May 6th 2013 article in the Jewish Forward by   A.J. Goldmann and Donald Snyder and Nathan Jeffay, Circumcision Controversy Endangers Fight To Keep Rite Legal in Germany Lawsuits Cite Rabbi’s Videotape of Metzitzah B’Peh , http://forward.com/articles/175915/circumcision-controversy-endangers-fight-to-keep-r/?p=all#ixzz2SXLQoKrp

[2] See the NY Times August 26, 2005 issue, Andy Newman, City Questions Circumcision Ritual After Baby Dieshttp://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/26/nyregion/26circumcise.html?_r=0

[3] The Col-Live channel for Chabad news explains. “The central reason for metzizah b’peh, our sages tell us, is to prevent infection or complications in the newborn after the bris, as explained in the Gemara (Talmud) and by the Rishonim (medieval rabbinic scholars). This has been confirmed by many doctors and scientists who have debunked the negative hype disseminated by so-called experts relying on outdated and inaccurate medical data. Thousands upon thousands of Jewish children over many decades have been circumcised with metsita b’peh, with not a single proven instance of a baby falling ill as a result. One of the most prominent pediatricians in our city who has tended to newborns for decades testifies that the claim of children getting sick due to metsita b’peh is bogus.”  http://www.collive.com/show_news.rtx?id=21548&alias=mohalim-voice-their-concerns

[4] Abraham Ibn Maimonides, Introduction to Ein Yaakob.

*
Rabbi Samuel is spiritual leader of “Temple Beth Shalom in Chula Vista, California.  He may be contacted via michael.samuel@sdjewishworld.com