<HTML><HEAD></HEAD>
<BODY dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<DIV>I think the clarification issued by R. Shmuel Kamenetsky is in full
consonance with what the position I espoused. Part of the statement read:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<P><FONT face="Times New Roman">To my knowledge, it has not been proven that the
practice leads to contraction of illness. The halacha is extremely sensitive to
health concerns and it is wrong to insinuate that Jews who are very particular
in the care of their children would be engaging in a practice for thousands of
years which is inherently dangerous.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Times New Roman">We have a <STRONG>sacred responsibility to
protect our children from danger and that responsibility is paramount. However,
in the absence of an inherent danger from our performing mitzvos or following
our traditions,</STRONG> we must follow them. In my view, there has been no
demonstration of an inherent danger associated with Metzitzah B’Peh.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Times New Roman">He wrote, “in the absence of inherent danger,”
but we can clearly infer from these words that if that danger can be shown to
his satisfaction, he too would insist on a procedure that avoided the inherent
danger. So I again submit that if the evidence of the risk of metsitsa bepeh by
a carrier of the herpes virus can be shown, ie. if the evidence in the death of
an infant can positively be relateded to the virus infection of the mohel, even
if the risk is small, then RSK would agree that this be strictly avoided
(perhaps by testing the prospective mohel to see if he is a carrier of the
virus.).</FONT></P>
<P>Kol Tuv</P>
<P>Chaim Manaster</P></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>