[Avodah] FW: RSRH on Metzitzeh bePeh

[Micha Berger]

On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 01:50:11PM -0700, Harry Maryles wrote:
: Rav Zuriel seemed to say that the MbP is entirely a Minahg and he gave
: no hint that there is a dispute about that...

Well, that's what he holds, so yeah.

But it's not so pashut. While the gemara says that metzitzah has a health
benefit, it did not say that metzitzah was instituted FOR the health
benefit. R' Papa just says that because the mohel risked the child's
health, you should dismiss him. (Shabbos 133b)

The mishnah Shabbos 19:2 says:
    Osin kol torkhei milah: molin, upor'in, umotzetzin, venosenin aleha
    asplonis vekamon.

It is interesting that R' Papa talks about a lack of mezitzah, but not
about omitting bandaging nor the cumin (?). Similarly, the Rambam (Milah
2:2) mentions milah, peri'ah, and metzitzah alone. The shu"t Meishiv
Nefesh (2:6) concludes from this that the Rambam held metzitzah was part
of the mitzvah.

The shu"t Avnei Neizer (YD 338) shows how the gemara could be read
either way.

Also, tzitzin ein me'aqvin, so if someone noticed after a Shabbos beris
was complete that tzitzin were left, they have to clean up after Shabbos.
If, however, the tzitzin were noticed before you finished the milah, then
you can continue doing the milah and clean them up then. And what's the
definition of finishing milah? If metzitzah was done. Not bandage and
medicine (asplonis vekamon) -- mezitzah. Another source to conclude
metzitzah is part of the deOraisa.

And if metzitzah were merely bloodletting, why is the machloqes about MbP
and not about metzitzah being superfluous altogether? (In particular, on
Shabbos!) For that matter, one aspect of the debate (we saw when looking
at RSRH) isn't even if MbP is required, but whether using a tzinor
(as opposed to the CS's use of an absorbant sponge or bandage) is still
bepeh! Do we requite letting blood after any other surgery? I therefore
don't think it is being suggested (outside of popularist articles and blog
posts) that metzizah is simply bloodletting, and trivially dismissable.

The Levush Mordechai (#30), notably a Litvak, argues that metzizah bepeh
is so repulsive of a concept, how could anyone think we instituted it
if it weren't a chiyuv? He also leaves open the question as to whether
someone who didn't have metzitzah, which he assumes requires MbP, is an
orel or can he eat from the qorban Pesach! R' YL Diskin makes the same
argument, which the IM rejects (YD 1:223).

Within Qabbalah, orlah is associated with the kusones or of Adam after the
cheit, and thus requires curing via that part of the body that performed
the cheit. I do not have a mar'eh maqom, but I saw this attributed to
a source well before the3 MbP controversy of the CS's day -- R' Avraham
Azulai (Morocco, EY; c 1570-1643, the Chida's gg-grandfather and a talmid
of the Ohr haChaim).

I should also note that while most defenses of metzitzah and MbP in
particular start in the 19th century, this isn't necessarily because
it was a chiddush. Rather, EVERYONE did MbP, and no one questioned its
status until then. Silence came from taking it for granted (c.f. Rama
YD 265:10 telling you to spit the blood into the dirt), not disimissing
it! Veharaayah, Sephardim weren't touched by any of these battles,
and never questioned MbP or even looked to see if alternatives were valid.

My point being... There are two sides to the issue. It's non-trivial,
and it's really not for us on one tzad to tell the other tzad to reject
centuries of teshuvos from their qehillah and others. Doubly so when
the people doing the call for dimissal are the historical innovators.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When one truly looks at everyone's good side,
micha at aishdas.org        others come to love him very naturally, and
http://www.aishdas.org   he does not need even a speck of flattery.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Rabbi AY Kook