<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Let me firstly say, I am making no observations at all about the medical risks that may be transmitted from the Mohel to the baby.</b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><br></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b>My question is quite simple: performing Metz is Chillul Shabbos. It is permitted by the Mishnah and Gemara, only because it is medically valuable for the baby. According to all modern mainstream medical experts, Metz offers no medical benefit to the baby. So I ask, what Halachic device permits the Mohel to perform Metz on Shabbos? </b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><br></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b>Reb Micha has responded to my earlier posting: - Please reread <a href="http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol30/v30n124.shtml#11" target="_blank">http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol30/v30n124.shtml#11</a>
and the subsequent post for my list of sources …. My reply was intended as
being in addition to what was already said.</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><br></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b> MR – there is not a single proof in Reb Micha’s link to
indicate that Metz is a Torah obligation for any reason other than MEDICAL
concerns. That being the case, since today our medical knowledge indicates that
it is of no medical value; I ask – by what device are we Mechallel Shabbos in
order to perform Metz? </b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b>I suspect the true answer is, that if we do not perform
Metz on Shabbos then it will be abandoned by everyone other than the hard core
traditionalists. And I believe that although the logic to permit Chillul
Shabbos is flawed the understanding of community tendencies is correct. To this
end I suggest that COSMETIC Metz be performed on Shabbos; i.e. do everything
but actually create the vacuum.<br>
<br>
</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Reb Micha suggests that I don't actually answer the
questions:<br>
(1) Why does metzitzah qualify as minhag if people were doing it solely because
of Aristotilian medical theory?<br>
(1b) And why didn't bloodletting in other contexts qualify as minhag?<br>
<br>
</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b> MR – These questions are of no consequence to my
discussion of Chillul Shabbos for Metz.</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b> </b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>(2) Why would RSRH, RYESpektor, etc... require MBP if
Aristotle didn't give reasons for such a preference?<br>
<br>
</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b> MR - Why is this relevant to my discussion of
performing Metz on Shabbos?</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b> </b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Reb Micha suggests he has proof that medicine was not the
only reason for Metz.</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b> </b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b> MR - Please furnish whatever proofs you have. So far I have
seen none.<br>
<br>
Reb Micha concedes: “The gemara is clear that without Metzitzah one is still a
Mahul, circumcised. The Gemara is also clear that a mohel who does not perform
Metzitzah should be dismissed for risking the welfare of the baby.”</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Yet somehow Reb Micha still feels that - “That's
not the same as saying the only reason for metzitzah are those medical reasons,
and there is no qiyum asei involved.”</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><br></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b> MR -
What Asei is fulfilled by performing Metz, other than the Mitzvah of looking
after the health of the baby?<br>
<br>
</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><br>
Reb Micha cites, in <a href="http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol30/v30n123.shtml#09" target="_blank">http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol30/v30n123.shtml#09</a>
the Avnei Neizer who explains the gemara as being readable either way. </b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b> </b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b> MR - fine, let’s have a look at the AN</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b> </b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Reb Micha also suggests that the Meishiv Nefesh does similarly with the Rambam. </b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b> </b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b> MR - There is noting in the RaMBaM to support even
a suggestion that Metz has anything to do with Beris. There is no honest dialogue
if we are presented with conclusions rather than with an argument. “Reb Chaim
says” is not an argument, it is a conclusion. Let Reb Chaim’s argument stand on
its own two feet.</b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><br></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.727272033691406px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><br>
</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.727272033691406px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><br></span></p><br>Best,<br><br>Meir G. Rabi<br>