<HTML><HEAD></HEAD>
<BODY dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<DIV>RMB wrote:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">The question is whether halakhah makes this
chiluq.<BR><BR>I argued that one in hundreds of thousands is milsa delo
shekhachah, and<BR>thus ignorable. See Arukh haShulchan OC 544:5. I don't see
anyone being<BR>choleiq between being the sibah or not being mosir hamoneia. I
think<BR>that is why the debate isn't over the piquach nefesh side of
things,<BR>but whether the chiyuv of beris milah means that metzitzah bepeh
is<BR>a chiyuv.</FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV>CM responds:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Your cite (<FONT face="Times New Roman">Arukh haShulchan OC 544:5) puts me
in Hilchos Chol Hamoed, and does not relate, was there a typo here?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">Walking home from shul I mentioned this thread
to a prominent Rov in town, (not named as I did not ask if I could quote him
publicly on this) he responded that for pikuach nefesh there is no lower limit –
mephakchin olov es hagal if there is the SLIGHTEST chance the man is still
living – without concern for the issur Shabbos. So I don’t think (at least in
the opinion of this Rov) that “milsa delo shekhachah” will play here at all. (of
course that is but one Rov’s opinion, others may disagree). Then wrt to one who
is a known virus carrier not withstanding the small probability, he did mince
words. </FONT><FONT face="Times New Roman">He said “is er a roitseach.”
When asked about your argument about crossing the street is a risk to life
as well, he answered, “you need to apply some common sense.”</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">When I got home I thought about this a little
more and using “common sense” besides the diff I already pointed out in my
earlier post, there is another clear difference. Sure if you cross the street
there may be a small risk to life, but if you choose not to cross the street and
remain where you are, say in your “safe” bedroom, you are still exposed to some
risk (maybe a fire will start, maybe the gas furnace will explode, maybe the
house will be robbed and you kidnapped etc etc) so it is highly questionable
whether you have improved your risk profile by staying put and not crossing the
street. However, the mohel who is a carrier is a definite new and additional (if
small) risk with no counterbalance risk if you chose instead a mohel who is not
a carrier.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">I found on my Otzar HaChachma in a collection
of divrei Torah from talmidim (koveitz Chidushei Torah) where he uses the well
known chakira if rov is a birur or a din to explain the machlokes between Rav
and Shenuel whether holchim bepikuach nefesh achar harov. In a case of 9 Cusiim
and one Yisroel where one was poreish to the next chatzer so kol deporush meruba
porush applies and the km’l is that you still remove the gal lefi Shemual. So we
need to understand to what extent Shemuel would go or whether this would be a
flat out rule with no exceptions.? See the Tos. Yuma 85a (top Tos.) where he
says, “vechai bohem ... shelo yuchal lovo BESHUM INYAN lidei misas
Yisroel.”</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">Kol Tuv</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">Chaim Manaster</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT> </DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>