The ancient method of performing metzitzah—metzitzah b'peh, or oral suction[35][36]—has become controversial. The process has the mohel place his mouth directly on the circumcision wound to draw blood away from the cut. The vast majority of Jewish circumcision ceremonies do not use metzitzah b'peh,[37] but some Hasidic Jews use it.[38][39][40] It has been documented that the practice poses a serious risk of spreading herpes to the infant.[41][42] Proponents maintain that there is no conclusive evidence that links herpes to Metzitza,[43] and that attempts to limit this practice infringe on religious freedom.[44][45][46]

The practice has become a controversy in both secular and Jewish medical ethics. The ritual of metzitzah is found in Mishnah Shabbat 19:2, which lists it as one of the four steps involved in the circumcision rite. Rabbi Moses Sofer (1762–1839) observed that the Talmud states that the rationale for this part of the ritual was hygienic — i.e., to protect the health of the child. The Chasam Sofer issued a leniency (Heter) that some consider to have been conditional to perform metzitzah with a sponge to be used instead of oral suction in a letter to his student, Rabbi Lazar Horowitz of Vienna. This letter was never published among Rabbi Sofer's responsa but rather in the secular journal Kochvei Yitzchok.[47] along with letters from Dr. Wertheimer, the chief doctor of the Viennese General Hospital. It relates the story that a mohel (who was suspected of transmitting herpes via metzizah to infants) was checked several times and never found to have signs of the disease and that a ban was requested because of the "possibility of future infections".[48] Moshe Schick (1807–1879), a student of Moses Sofer, states in his book of Responsa, She’eilos u’teshuvos Maharam Schick (Orach Chaim 152,) that Moses Sofer gave the ruling in that specific instance only because the mohel refused to step down and had secular Government connections that prevented his removal in favor of another mohel and the Heter may not be applied elsewhere. He also states (Yoreh Deah 244) that the practice is possibly a Sinaitic tradition, i.e., Halacha l'Moshe m'Sinai. Other sources contradict this claim, with copies of Moses Sofer's responsa making no mention of the legal case or of his ruling applying in only one situation. Rather, that responsa makes quite clear that "metzizah" was a health measure and should never be employed where there is a health risk to the infant.[49]

Chaim Hezekiah Medini, after corresponding with the greatest Jewish sages of the generation, concluded the practice to be Halacha l'Moshe m'Sinai and elaborates on what prompted Moses Sofer to give the above ruling.[50] He tells the story that a student of Moses Sofer, Lazar Horowitz, Chief Rabbi of Vienna at the time and author of the responsa Yad Elazer, needed the ruling because of a governmental attempt to ban circumcision completely if it included metztitzah b'peh. He therefore asked Sofer to give him permission to do brit milah without metzitzah b’peh. When he presented the defense in secular court, his testimony was erroneously recorded to mean that Sofer stated it as a general ruling.[51] The Rabbinical Council of America, (RCA) which claims to be the largest American organization of Orthodox rabbis, published an article by mohel Dr Yehudi Pesach Shields in its summer 1972 issue of Tradition magazine, calling for the abandonment of Metzitzah b'peh.[52] Since then the RCA has issued an opinion that advocates methods that do not involve contact between the mohel's mouth and the open wound, such as the use of a sterile syringe, thereby eliminating the risk of infection.[38] According to the Chief Rabbinate of Israel[53] and the Edah HaChareidis[54] metzitzah b'peh should still be performed.

The practice of metzitzah b'peh was alleged to pose a serious risk in the transfer of herpes from mohelim to eight Israeli infants, one of whom suffered brain damage.[41][55] When three New York City infants contracted herpes after metzizah b'peh by one mohel and one of them died, New York authorities took out a restraining order against the mohel requiring use of a sterile glass tube, or pipette.[40][56] The mohel's attorney argued that the New York Department of Health had not supplied conclusive medical evidence linking his client with the disease.[56][57] In September 2005, the city withdrew the restraining order and turned the matter over to a rabbinical court.[58] Dr. Thomas Frieden, the Health Commissioner of New York City, wrote, "There exists no reasonable doubt that ‘metzitzah b'peh’ can and has caused neonatal herpes infection....The Health Department recommends that infants being circumcised not undergo metzitzah b'peh."[59] In May 2006, the Department of Health for New York State issued a protocol for the performance of metzitzah b'peh.[60] Dr. Antonia C. Novello, Commissioner of Health for New York State, together with a board of rabbis and doctors, worked, she said, to "allow the practice of metzizah b'peh to continue while still meeting the Department of Health's responsibility to protect the public health."[61]

In three medical papers done in Israel, Canada, and the USA, oral suction following circumcision was suggested as a cause in 11 cases of neonatal herpes.[41][62][63] Researchers noted that prior to 1997, neonatal herpes reports in Israel were rare, and that the late incidences were correlated with the mothers not carrying the virus themselves.[41] Rabbi Doctor Mordechai Halperin implicates the "better hygiene and living conditions that prevail among the younger generation", which lowered to 60% the rate of young Israeli Chareidi mothers who carry the virus. He explains that an "absence of antibodies in the mothers’ blood means that their newborn sons received no such antibodies through the placenta, and therefore are vulnerable to infection by HSV-1."[33]

Barriers[edit]

Because of the risk of infection, some rabbinical authorities have ruled that the traditional practice of direct contact should be replaced by using a glass tube between the wound and the mohel's mouth, so there is no direct oral contact. The Rabbinical Council of America, the largest group of Modern Orthodox rabbis, endorses this method.[64] The RCA paper states: "Rabbi Schachter even reports that Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik reports that his father, Rav Moshe Soloveitchik, would not permit a mohel to perform metzitza be’peh with direct oral contact, and that his grandfather, Rav Chaim Soloveitchik, instructed mohelim in Brisk not to do metzitza be’peh with direct oral contact. However, although Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik also generally prohibited metzitza be’peh with direct oral contact, he did not ban it by those who insisted upon it,...". The sefer Mitzvas Hametzitzah[65] by Rabbi Sinai Schiffer of Baden, Germany, states that he is in possession of letters from 36 major Russian (Lithuanian) rabbis that categorically prohibit Metzitzah with a sponge and require it to be done orally. Among them is Rabbi Chaim Halevi Soloveitchik of Brisk.

In September 2012, the New York Department of Health unanimously ruled that the practice of metztizah b'peh should require informed consent from the parent or guardian of the child undergoing the ritual.[66] Prior to the ruling, several hundred rabbis, including Rabbi David Neiderman, the executive director of the United Jewish Organization of Williamsburg, signed a declaration stating that they would not inform parents of the potential dangers that came with metzitzah b'peh, even if informed consent became law.[67]

In a Motion for preliminary injunction with intend to sue, filed against New York City Department of Health & Mental Hygiene, affidavits by Doctors Awi Federgruen Professor at the Columbia University Graduate School of Business.[68] Brenda Breuer, Director of Epidemiologic Research at the Department of Pain Medicine and Palliative Care at the Beth Israel Medical Center, and an Associate Professor of Clinical Neurology at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine.[69] Daniel S. Berman, Chief of Infectious-Disease at New York Westchester Square Hospital,[70] argues that the study on which the department passed its conclusions is flawed.

Koliko sam vidio, ne postoji tema o judaizmu. Stoga, ja je pokrecem. Ovdje mozemo diskutirati sve sto se tice judaizma i teologije istog.

A o čemu bi razgovarali?

“Moraš ih pobiti: Hetite i Amorejce, Kanaance i Perižane, Hivijce i Jebusejce, kao što ti je zapovjedio Jehova, Bog tvoj” (5. MOJSIJEVA 20:17)

O odnosu prema nejevrejima (99.8% covjecanstva) u Talmudu.

A moze i Tora, tj Stari Zavjet:

Talmud-ljudska mudrovanja.Nebitan.

Tora-Božji Zakon.Bitan.

Btw,što te buni,rokanje po gore nabrojanoj bratiji?

Juce su oni ta bratija, danas su to Palestinci, Sirijci, sutra smo mozda mi.

Talmud je nastao jer je zidovsko svecenstvo nestalo.

Kako nestalo?

Destrukcijom drugog hrama 70 AD, unistene su i maticne knjige. Tako da danas nijedan zidov ne moze tvrditi da je potomak Levina ili sin Arona. A ti su jedini mogli biti svecenici, to jeste Leviti/sinovi Arona.

Ajd da je i tako,a kakve to ima veze sa Talmudom?

Judaizam koji se danas prakticira nema nista s Bozijim poslanicima staroga zavjeta. Rabini danas Boga definiraju Talmudom i pogled na svijet crpe iz tog istog Talmuda, ne iz starog zavjeta. A sta je talmud? Talmud su zapisani, od pocetka usmeni zakoni. Isa a.s je zamjerao zidovskom svecenstvu sto su uzurpirali poruke starih poslanika Bozijih putem Talmuda, kojeg je Isa a.s zvao "tradiciju starih". Zapisani su za vrijeme Ise a.s. Talmudom se reguliraju zidovska vjerovanja i postavljanje prema nezidovima, to jeste goyimima. Pa tebi kao krscaninu bi posebno biti odbojan talmud, obzirom sta Talmud kaze o Isi a.s (da je bio magionicar koji se sada u paklu kuha u vlastitim *** (subhanallah) i da je Merjem njegova mati bila frizerka i prostitutka koja je imala odnos spolni s stolarima (subhanallah) A ni upute za ponasanje prema gentilima (goyimu kako nas lijepo nazivaju) te ne bi trebale narocito oduseviti.

Došao jedan ne-Židov kod Šamaja i upitao ga: Koliko Tora vi imate?
(Šamaj) odgovori: Dvije,pisana Tora i usmena Tora (Torah She-Be'al Peh פֶּה תּוֹרָה שֶׁבְּעַל ).

(Babylonian Talmud, Sabbath 31a)

Kralj Judeje iz 8. stoljeća prije Krista

U Izraelu pronađen pečat Ezekije



Izraelski areholozi utvrdili su da je malen predmet, pronađen prije pet godina u iskopinama blizu staroga grada Jeruzalema, pečat s imenom Ezekije, sina Ahazova, kralja Judeje iz VIII. stoljeća prije Krista.

Glineni kružić, promjera manjeg od centimetra, zapečatio je svitak papirusa, a vidljiv otisak vlakana na njegovoj donjoj strani pokazuje da je kralj vlastoručno ovjerio dokument, smatra Eilat Mazar, arehologinja s Hebrejskog sveučilišta u Jeruzalemu.

Mazar, voditeljica iskapanja, drži da je pečat "vrlo vjerojatno pripadao kralju Ezekiji".

Pečat ima motive u egipatskom stilu te znak ankh, hijeroglif koji znači "život".

Ezekija je bio kralj Judeje od 716. do 687. godine prije Krista. Dao je utvrdama učvrstiti grad Jeruzalem i pitku vodu usmjeriti kanalom koji je pronađen u 19. stoljeću.

- Pouzdavao se u Jahvu, Boga Izraelova. Ni prije njega ni poslije njega ne bijaše mu ravna među kraljevima - stoji u Drugoj knjizi o Kraljevima (2 Kr 18, 5).

Ezekija je bio trinaesti po redu kralj Judejskog kraljevstva, sin i nasljednik kralja Ahaza. Oca je naslijedio kada mu je bilo 25 godina, kraljevao je dvadeset i devet godina od 716–687. pr. Kr. Majka mu se zvala Abi (2 Kr 18,1–2), Zaharijina kći.


Druga knjiga o Kraljevima donosi prikaz uvoda u kraljevanje Ezekijino (2 Kr 18,1–8), osvajanje Samarije od strane Asirija kralja Šalmanasara V. (2 Kr 18,9–12), Sanheribova vojna koja osvaja judejske gradove (2 Kr 18,9–12), poslanstvo kraljevskog peharnika, asirski je kralj poslao iz Lakiša u Jeruzalem kralju Ezekiji velikog dvoranina i peharnika s jakom vojskom (2 Kr 18,17–37), Ezekijina pitanja proroku Izaiji, šalje svoje sluge k Izaiji (2 Kr 19,1–7), povlačenje velikog peharnika (2 Kr 19,8–9), Ezekija dobiva Sanheribovo pismo i moli se Jahvi (2 Kr 19,10–19), tada Izaija, sin Amosov poručuje Ezekiji kako Jahve, Bog Izraelov uslišah molitvu koju mu uputi zbog Sanheriba, kralja asirskog (2 Kr 19,20–34), smrt Sanheribova (2 Kralj 19,35–37). Ezekijina bolest i ozdravljenje (2 Kr 20,1–11), babilonski kralj Merodak–Baladan šalje svoje poslanike s darom Ezekiji jer bijaše čuo da se razbolio i ozdravio (2 Kr 20,12–19) i svršetak Ezekijina kraljevanja Ezekija koji nije opisan nego nas pisac upućuje u Drugu knjigu Ljetopisa judejskih kraljeva (2 Kr 20,20–21).

Druga knjiga Ljetopisa donosi prikaz Ezekijine vjerske obnove unutar kraljevstva, ponovo je otvorio i obnovio Dom Jahvin, čišćenje Hrama (Ljet 29,3–17), prinosi žrtve okajnice u Jahvin Dom (Ljet 29,18–36), poslije čišćenja Hrama i obreda pomirenja moglo se opet nastaviti bogoslužje koje se započinje svečanom liturgijom. Ezekija poziva cijeli narod u Jahvin Dom u Jeruzalemu da proslave Pashu (Ljet 30). Obnova bogoštovlja i obnova svećeništva, Ezekija je svećeničke i levitske redove po njihovim redovima svakoga prema njegovoj službi, svećenike i levite za paljenice i za pričesnice da služe, slave i hvale Boga na vratima Jahvina tabora. (Ljet 31). I opis Sanheribove najezde i Sanheribovo bogohulne riječi. Ljetopisac hvali Ezekija kao odlučnu i hrabru osobu, te pokazuje kako soko|li narod da ima pouzdanja u Jahvinu pomoć. Ezekija se suprostavlja na teške napade Sanheribove vojske zajedničkom molitvom sa prorokom Izaijom, Amosov sin, zazivajući Jahvu u pomoć i tada Javhe pošalje anđela koji uništi asirsku vojsku (Ljet 32,20–23). Ezekijino oboljenje i Jahvina pomoć ozdravljenju (Ljet 32,24). I Ezekijev svršetak: „Ezekija je počinuo kod svojih otaca. Sahranili su ga na usponu kako se ide ka grobovima Davidovih sinova. Po smrti su mu odali počast svi Judejci i Jeruzalemci. Na njegovo se mjesto zakraljio sin mu Manaše“. (Ljet 32,33)

Pogl. 36–39 iz Izaija posuđena su iz Druge knjige o Kraljevima, u kojima je naglašena Ezekijina pobožnost koje se očituje u Izaijinom proroštvu. Značajno je da on sve do kraja ponavlja srž svoje poruke: treba se uzdati u Jahvu a ne u sile ovoga svijeta.

Markane vazi li Musin (a.s) zakon i za krscane?

NEma smisla da se piše o ovoj temi kao o Islamu, tamo imate muslimane, pa iako nešto napišete o Islamu, dobiti ćete nekakav odgovor.
Ovdje nema ni jednog Jevrejina, pa i nije neka rasprava.
Mada ovako treba pristiupiti kad je i u pitanju Islam, ostaviti ga kršćanima neka pišu sami sa sobom.