Volume 61 Number 32
Produced: Sun, 09 Sep 2012 11:19:04 EDT
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Examining the issue of Metzitzah BePeh (2)
[Nachum Binyamin Klafter, MD Martin Stern]
Immersion in mikveh of single women (was Zenut) (5)
[Yisrael Medad Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz David Tzohar Gilad J. Gevaryahu Avraham Walfish]
Rosh Yeshiva Pasuls Chupah Eid Because of iPhone
[Stuart Wise]
Tzitzit during Shema
[Steven Oppenheimer]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nachum Binyamin Klafter, MD <doctorklafter@...>
Date: Fri, Sep 7,2012 at 01:01 AM
Subject: Examining the issue of Metzitzah BePeh
I appreciate Steven Oppenheimer's informative post (MJ 61#31). I would like to
add to his excellent summary. There exists another very important opinion
regarding the halakha of "metzitza." This opinion states that "metzitza"
was not a rabbinic enactment specifically made about the sucking of blood.
Rather, this was a rabbinic enactment to apply the best principles of
medical treatment to the circumcision wound.
At the time that the Torah She-be-al Peh was condified into the Mishna, the
prevailing medical practice for wounds was to suck blood. It was believed
that toxins were present in the body which could only be removed by sucking
out significant amounts of blood from wounds. It is clear to me that this
is the understanding of the Rambam, by the way, whose language clearly
discusses metzitza as a medical procedure and not a religious ritual. There
is abundant evidence that this was the underlying scientific belief, and
that this was advocated by gentile medical authors in the ancient world,
i.e., this practice was not unique to Jews or to the ritual of brit milah.
(A masterful article by Dr. Shlomo Sprecher on this in the Hakira and is
available free online.)
According to the above mentioned halakhic opinion, the enactment of
"metzitza" would be fulfilled in contemporary times not by sucking blood at
all, neither the mouth or through a tube. Rather, it would be by using
sterile blades, cleaning the penis in advance with alcohol or another
antiseptic, minimizing bleeding, and affixing a sterile bandage in a manner
which minimizes the healing area of the wound. This opinion takes the
principle of Tzvi Pesach Frank, mentioned in Steven's post, even further. Not
only is it illogical to be stringent for metzitza be-feh, but according to this
opinion there is no Torah principle fulfilled whatsoever by sucking blood with a
glass tube or sterile syringe.
There was a preposterous attempt to justify the medical benefit of metzitza
be-feh in the boook "Brit Keruta Bein Ha-Sefatayim," which was translated by
Feldheim and published under the English title, "Sanctity and Science." The
"science" in this book is embarrassingly foolish. Suffice it to say,
according to contemporary medical science, it is clear that there is no
medical benefit to sucking blood from the wound, and it is contraindicated
to have saliva in contact with any wounds as saliva is contaminated with
loads of bacteria.
I am an ordained mohel. I was trained in circumcision, tested and received
a kabala to perform circumcision by a highly regarded and well known teacher
of brit mila who was of this opinion. My personal posek in the U.S. has
reaffirmed that in his opinion this approach is the best understanding of
the halakha.
By the way, even according to the authorities who believe metzitza must
be done, and needs to be done with direct oral contact, it is universally
held that be-deiavad if metzitza was omitted altogether the brit is
nevertheless totally kosher.
Nachum Klafter, MD
- '
7502 State Road, Suite 2280
Cincinnati, OH 45255
(513)474-8900 FAX(513)233-6693
<doctorklafter@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Sun, Sep 9,2012 at 06:01 AM
Subject: Examining the issue of Metzitzah BePeh
Steven Oppenheimer (MJ 61#31) discusses the problems of Metzitzah Befeh.
While the medical arguments he brings seem to be entirely reasonable, I fear
that the opposition to its curtailment in certain strictly Orthodox circles is
motivated mainly by an opposition in principle to 'outsiders' trying to
enforce 'improvements' on the observant Jewish community. In this case the
former are probably correct but their tactics are entirely wrong and only
cause the latter to dig in their heels and refuse to implement what probably
would be real improvements.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael Medad <yisrael.medad@...>
Date: Thu, Sep 6,2012 at 06:01 PM
Subject: Immersion in mikveh of single women (was Zenut)
Martin Stern (MJ 61#31) writes on this topic of mikveh immersion for
non-marrieds that but, if they are not married, this is not relevant"
I happen to know that one of the main reasons Rav Goren found himself unable to
permit unmarried girls to go to the mikveh so that they could ascend and enter
into the Temple Mount compound was the ruling that in doing so, he would be
setting up a situation in which they might enter into non-married marital
relations, i.e., sexual activity. I presume that this is the reasoning behind
the request for the ban.
Incidentally, the solution for the non-married woman's ascent, for those
desiring to do so, is now to have her enter on the day of her Chuppah after her
preparatory immersion.
--
Yisrael Medad
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz <sabbahillel@...>
Date: Thu, Sep 6,2012 at 09:01 PM
Subject: Immersion in mikveh of single women (was Zenut)
Martin Stern wrote (MJ 61#31):
> Two questions immediately come to mind. First, what do they hope to achieve?
> Nowadays the laws of taharah (ritual purity) are in abeyance since, until
> the Temple is rebuilt, there are no kodshim (sacrificial offerings) for them
> to eat. The only reason nowadays for any woman to immerse in a mikvah is to
> permit her to have sexual relations with her husband but, if they are not
> married, this is not relevant.
>
> Second, why do they need to petition the Supreme Court? Surely there is no
> way that a woman's marital status is so obvious that she can be prevented
> from using a mikvah if she so desires unless she declares it herself.
>
> So, if they wish to engage in zenut (extramarital sexual activity), they can
> do so without having the ban removed. It is, therefore, obvious that their
> sole purpose is to force the Rabbinate to condone their immorality. This is
> hardly a matter for the secular Israeli courts!
>
> What do others think?
Perhaps they wish to enter the temple mount and try to force the
government to allow them to pray there. I believe that one is required
to go to the mikvah before doing so. Similarly, perhaps they want to go
to the mikvah before Rosh Hashanna or Yom Kippur just as many men do.
Of course, somehow I doubt that this is their motive based on the way
the article describes them, but you did seem to ask if there was any
conceivable reason. If they are not married then they should not be in a
conceivable situation.
Actually, I expect that some day someone will petition the Supreme Court
to force a kosher restaurant to serve treif food.
Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz
<SabbaHillel@...>
http://sabbahillel.blogspot.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Tzohar <davidtzohar@...>
Date: Sat, Sep 8,2012 at 04:01 PM
Subject: Immersion in mikveh of single women (was Zenut)
The Center for Womans Justice is petitioning the court on this issue
because of their own anti-rabbinical agenda, but the question itself
is not new. I know of a case where a chief rabbi of a city in Israel
when asked by a young unmarried woman whether she should immerse in a
mikvah before having relations answered that while she is comitting
b'ilat zenut and he in no way condones this, b'ilat niddah is a much
more serious offense.
I agree however that this is not a matter that should be adjudicated
in the Israeli secular court.
David Tzohar
http://tzoharlateivahebrew.blogspot.com/
http://tzoharlateiva.blogspot.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gilad J. Gevaryahu <gevaryahu@...>
Date: Sun, Sep 9,2012 at 11:01 AM
Subject: Immersion in mikveh of single women (was Zenut)
Martin Stern (MJ 61#31) wrote:
> The only reason nowadays for any woman to immerse in a mikvah is to
> permit her to have sexual relations with her husband but, if they are
> not married, this is not relevant.
> Second, why do they need to petition the Supreme Court? Surely there is
> no way that a woman's marital status is so obvious that she can be prevented
> from using a mikvah if she so desires unless she declares it herself.
> So, if they wish to engage in zenut (extramarital sexual activity), they
> can do so without having the ban removed. It is, therefore, obvious that
> their sole purpose is to force the Rabbinate to condone their immorality.
> This is hardly a matter for the secular Israeli courts!
I disagree, as this viewpoint is an extreme one. The extramarital sexual
activity is not zenut in the case of concubine. Concubine can be a regular and
exclusive lover of a married man, or a regular and exclusive lover of an
unmarried man, and these relationship are not viewed by Chazal as zenut. Nisuei
bia'ah, or marriage performed by a rabbi or any other Jew which were not
sanctioned by the state is another example where the couple is married according
to halacha, but not registered by the state. It is expected of these ladies to
go monthly to the mikveh just as married women do. If these ladies are blocked
from using the state facilities, they do have the right to petition the court in
order to keep the rules of taharah.
Many people view the above relationships as less than ideal from halachic point
of view, and I am not in favor of them either, but they are there, and in
certain societies they were and are common. Rabbi Yaakov Emden (Teshuvot
Yaavetz 2:15) dealt with this issue at length, and wrote that these
relationships need to be absolved, with a Get.
Gilad J. Gevaryahu,
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Avraham Walfish <rawalfish@...>
Date: Sun, Sep 9,2012 at 11:01 AM
Subject: Immersion in mikveh of single women (was Zenut)
Martin wondered (MJ 61#31) why single women would want to immerse in a
mikveh, if not in order to engage in illicit sex. One reason could be to
ascend the Temple Mount, and I have given a shiur to the Women of the
Mikdash
(available online at their website: http://www.namikdash.org.il/inner/46)
explaining why I believe this to be permissible. Btw some mikvaot have prevented
married women from using the mikveh if they suspect that the reason for the
immersion is to ascend the Temple Mount. I don't personally know of such cases,
but I can imagine that some single women would want to go to the mikveh for
spiritual reasons, much as many hassidic men - and neo-hassidic youths of male
persuasion - immerse themselves weekly or even daily.
Avie
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stuart Wise <Smwise3@...>
Date: Thu, Sep 6,2012 at 10:01 PM
Subject: Rosh Yeshiva Pasuls Chupah Eid Because of iPhone
Martin Stern wrote (MJ 61#31):
> Steven Oppenheimer wrote (MJ 61#30):
>> As the kesuva was being written, Rabbi Yosef Zeev Feinstein,
>> Rosh Yeshivas "Ameilah shel Torah", the mesader kedushin, asked to
>> meet the Eidim (witnesses). He asked them to see their cell phones.
>> One pulled out a kosher phone. The second an iPhone. The latter was
>> disqualified as a witness.
> I fear this is the beginning of a trend and we will see many more such
> rulings in the coming months. Only this week I saw a notice in a certain
> beit hamidrash that stated among its rules that "nobody who has internet
> access without an approved filter will be allowed to have an aliyah".
I would like to known the halachic basis for rendering the witness pasul?
Can a rosh yeshiva do it unilaterally just like that? I have heard that a
well-respected rav here in Brooklyn who last year before tekias shofar said
anyone who has iphone or phone internet access is not yotzi shofar. I fear
this is not a trend; it is an abuse of halachah, using it to control and
attain a specific goal.
Stuart Wise
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Steven Oppenheimer <steven.oppenheimer@...>
Date: Thu, Sep 6,2012 at 11:01 PM
Subject: Tzitzit during Shema
Kalonymos Nachtvogel (MJ 61#29) suggests that the custom to hold and kiss
the tzitzit during Shema is a "minhag shtus" - a foolish (ignorant) custom.
He writes: " I would like to suggest that it is assur to take one's
tzitzis in hand during the bracha before the Shema and equally assur to
release them during the bracha after the Shema."
He attempts to justify these strong words by presenting some reasoning of
his own. He is certainly entitled to his opinion. I should like, however,
to bring some sources as to why this custom is hardly a foolish, ignorant
one but rather a prevalent custom advocated by many poskim. Those who have
this custom should feel secure that they have the backing of prominent
poskim and rather than be labeled as ignorant might feel comforted that
they are "enlightened" as I hope you will see after reading the following.
The Shulchan Aruch (61:25) writes that it is proper to touch the tefillin
shel yad when it is mentioned (le'oht al yadecha) in the Shema and to touch
the tefillin shel rosh when it is mentioned (letotafot bain ainecha). The
Mishnah Berurah (61:39) writes that this should also be done in the second
parasha of Shema when tefillin are mentioned.
Chayei Adam (14:15) reports that the custom is to kiss the tefillin after
one touches them. This custom is also brought by the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch
(10:17). One might ask if we are supposed to touch and kiss the tefillin
when we mention them, why don't we touch and kiss the mezuzah when we
mention "al mezuzot beitecha?" The custom is to only touch and kiss that
which we are wearing and is easily accessible (Likutei Maharich, Beit Yosef
24).
Rama (24:4) informs us that there us a custom to kiss the tzitzit to show
our appreciation for the mitzvah (chibuv mitzvah). The Mishnah Berurah
(24:7) explains in the name of the kadmonim that whoever passes the tzitzit
over his eyes when he recites the parasha of tzitzit is assured that his
eyesight will be protected (lo yavo leyedei simuy einayim) (Ba'er Haitev).
The Shulchan Aruch (24:2) instructs us to hold the tzitzit in our left hand
opposite our heart when reciting the Shema. The Arizal instructs us to
gather together the tzitzit when we reach "me'arba kanfot ha'aretz" in
Ahava Rabah (See Ketzot HaShulchan 19:25). It is reported that Rav Auerbach
held only two tzitzit (Orchot Halacha chap. 7, oht 7). This was also the
custom of the GR"A (Yalkut Yosef volume 2, page 282 citing Sefer Sha'arei
Rachamim). The Tzitz Eliezer (13:3) writes that whoever does not gather up
the tzitzit for Kriat Shema and kiss them is poreish min hatzibbur (departs
from accepted custom).
It has been suggested that the reason the GR"A did not kiss the tzitzit is
because one must concentrate and look at the tzitzit, thus remembering all
the mitzvot. We see this from the Gemorrah (Rosh HaShannah, end of the
third chapter) that the requirement was to gaze at the brass snake so that
the eyes of Benei Yisroel would be looking heavenward. Kissing the tzitzit
might interrupt one from thinking about the mitzvot because it would
interrupt his gazing at them (Rabbi Naftali Hertz). Rabbi Moshe Sternbuch
(Sefer Hilchot HaGR"A, hilchot tzitzit, oht 32), however, remarks that the
GR"A probably did pass the tzitzit over his eyes to fulfill the instruction
of the kadmonim (that doing so protects against simuy ainayim).
The prevalent custom today is to kiss the tzitzit every time the word
tzitzit is mentioned and to pass them over one's eyes (Chesed La'Alafim,
24:2, see also Kaf HaChaim, 24:18; Yafeh LaLev s.k. 12; Kitzur Shulchan
Aruch 17:7; Aruch HaShulchan 24:3; Ketzot HaShulchan 19:25).
Rabbi Moshe Feinstein was asked (O. Ch. 4:10) if it is proper to kiss the
tefillin when putting them on or is this considered a hefsek (interuption).
Rav Moshe responded that it is not a hefsek because one does not linger
while kissing them (ain bazeh inyan shihuy klal). Therefore, when one
kisses the tzitzit during Shema, there is similarly no hefsek (Rabbi Yehuda
Chesner, Siach Tefillah, p. 113).
Rabbi Sh. Z. Auerbach had the custom to kiss the tzitzit during Shema
(Siach Tefillah). Rabbi Ephraim Greenblatt wrote that it was Rabbi M.
Feinstein's custom to kiss the tzitzit after "emet" and again after "lo'ad
kayomet" (Rivevot Ephraim 2:48, oht 99). Rabbi Chesner suggests that
kissing the tzitzit at "lo'ad kayomet" must be a time honored custom
otherwise Rav Moshe would not have had this custom. The Siddur Ya'avetz
Amudei Shamayim instructs the reader to kiss the tzitzit and release them
at "lo'ad kayomet."
--
Steven Oppenheimer, D.M.D.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 61 Issue 32
