[Avodah] Metz is required via Divine Revelation

[Micha Berger]

On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 02:55:11AM +0000, Akiva Miller wrote:
: In other words, I am aware of the requirement of metzitzah, and I
: am also aware that the reason for metzitza is health-related. But I
: am totally unaware how Chazal came to the belief that a milah without
: metzitzah is dangerous. They may have gotten this belief through their
: own medical research and observation, or simply by relying on the medical
: research of others.

I disagree on both points.

Again, there are 4 or 5 steps mentioned in the mishnah:
    1-  milah
    2-  peri'ah
    3-  metzitzah
    4-  venosenin aleha asplonis
    4a- vekamon

WRT cleaning up remaining tzitzin on Shabbos, metzitzah is not treated
the same as bandaging or medicating. And the Rambam doesn't bother
mentioning bandaging medicating, but does mention metzitzah.

And this should pretty much close the metzitzah only on 6 days proposal,
IMHO. If metzitzah is enough part of milah to connect subsequent removal
of tzitzin to the original maaseh, lo kol shekein the metzizah itself!

It is far from clear to enough rishonim and acharonim that the reason
for metzitzah actually is health related. All the gemara says is that
there is a medical danger to not doing metzitzah; not that avoiding this
danger is the perpose of metzitzah. So, I wouldn't make it a given.

Of the shitos stated before the current contretemps, "only" the CS's is
consistent with assuming the purpose of metzitzah is medical. Not that he
necessarily holds it is medical; it could be that he holds metzitzah is
part of milah, but needn't be even remotely bepeh. Requiring a pipette,
so that metzitzah bepeh is met in some form or another, is not any more
consistent with the medical theory than using absorbtion by gauze or
sponge. Even if someone would explain to me how a medical practice can
evolve into a minhag, and a practice not specific to milah would become
a minhag of milah, I don't see how a medical practice that didn't require
bepeh would evolve into a minhag that does.

And we have a very well accepted sefer that gives a sevara for metzitzah
as a taam hamitzvah. (Tiqunei Zohar was published 5 years before the
SA, even if you don't attribute it, or this particular portion of it,
to Rashbi.)

As a second point, I also disagree with the idea that chazal's medicine
would more likely be revelatory than simply dependence on then-current
theory. We have no claim from Chazal that Hashem gave us special
knowledge of anything scientific other than the one case related to
qidush hachodesh.

Blood letting was practiced as far back as Egypt and Mesopotamia. (If
HQBH related metzitzah as a meical need to MRAH, he might have answered,
"Yeah, the court physician told me that back when I was a kid.") While
Greek "four humor" theory (mood and health are deemed the product of 4
different kinds of bodliy fluid) gave it more explanation and complexity,
Hippocrates actually plays down its importance in favor of cures based on
diet. By Chazal's day, it had already reached China via the Babylonians.
(As had the Metonic cycle; ie 7 leap months every 19 years.) So I think
it's an overstatement to call bloodletting in Chazal's day "science" --
it was considered "common knowledge".

I think it is a chiddush to say that Chazal asserted some medical common
knowledge that had been accepted for 2 millenia for reasons of our own.

BTW, it might be that before germ theory made it common practice to
sterilize the izmel and area, metzitzah would be critical even according
to today's medical theories. After all, it might keep many of the
infections otherwise acquired from non-sterile surgery from spreading.

Note that I'm not taking sides. I'm objecting to this idea that
"obviously" metzitzah is one or the other. We have to have the emunas
chakhamim that there is validity (eilu va'eilu) to shitos that disagree.

GCT!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is our choices...that show what we truly are,
micha at aishdas.org        far more than our abilities.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - J. K. Rowling
Fax: (270) 514-1507