|WikiProject Judaism||(Rated B-class, Top-importance)|
burial of the foreskin ? sale of the foreskin ? destroyed as surgical waste ?
I came across this account of what happens to the foreskin after the Brit Milah : Traditionally they are buried. That's what we did after our son's Bris. The requirement to do so is given in Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah, 265:10. Occasionally the parents will put a bush or (preferably) a fruit tree on top of the foreskin. Kabbalistic (mystical) interpretation of the reason is as follows:
"According to Kabbalah, the foreskin is the symbol of the negative consciousness/energy in our world. Therefore, after the Brit we must bury the foreskin immediately in the ground. Kabbalah tells us, the earth (soil) is the only matter that has the power to eliminate/diffuse all of the foreskin’s negativity. When it is buried, it must be done with the intention of helping to diminish the negative energy in the world. All people present at the Brit benefit from the diminishment of their own negative energy, so therefore it is advisable to invite as many people as possible to participate in the ceremony of the Brit Mila, to share the positive benefits."
Talmud and Halacha
Before stating opinions about certain aspects of the Bris, it is important to write the first source of these laws, such as the Talmud. It is wrong to alter the words of the Talmud in order to reach an agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chabadbris (talk • contribs) 05:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- No one is changing what is said in the Talmud, חס ושלום, but please review WP:RS. We CANNOT use vozizneis. Also, what in particular in the current article do you believe is not in accordance with ש"ס (Talmud). Please list what you believe are the issues prior to making wholesale changes. -- Avi (talk) 06:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Avi, There are two primary things I want to correct in the article:
- There was a misleading translation to the entire meaning of "Metzitza". The article translated it to be "removing blood", and the layout of the article suggested that a small number of ultra orthodox Jews began (a "new custom") "Metzitza B'Peh" "sucking with the mouth" .
- I want to clarify that in fact it is the opposite: the word Metzitza (brought in Talmud) means "sucking", and is recently changing to use tubes etc.
The right way to post an article is to state and clarify the orginal custom/law and later to explain changes/opposers etc.
- I noticed many postings bringing one side of the story without any sources or citings.
- I'm actually really unclear on the spelling. There are at least 3 diffs I can see:
- Can we verify which of these is proper? Apparently some drop the H or the Ts. Ranze (talk) 05:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Before writing specific opinions on aspects of Bris Milah, it is important not to leave out the primary source of these laws which is stated in the Talmud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chabadbris (talk • contribs) 06:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, I believe you are mistaken. Wikipedia policy is to avoid primary sources. We quote Shas at times (I did in the Semicha article for example) but not always and not often. -- Avi (talk) 06:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks again Avi.
- In this case I beleive that the orginal law brought in Talmud must be clearly stated, translated and explained, before writing a long list of oppositions/modifications.
- (The one citation of "vosisniaz.com" could be removed however since it is alongside other citations the sentence does not need to be removed.) ( Chabadbris (talk) 06:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC) )
- There is no dispute that word "Metzitza" means "sucking", both in modern Hebrew as well in the Mishnah language. (The same way everyone translates "Metzitza B'peh"). The reason I brought a dictionary, was in order to bring additional citation as to why I removed a previous false translation. I hope to soon look up the Artscroll translation and cite that source in place/addition to the dictionaries. Chabadbris (talk) 05:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Every word I posted came straight from the Talmud. In fact the source of this law originally comes from the Talmud and it seems that you removed essential aspects of the law that were properly sourced in that very same Talmud. You then replaced it with information amd state "Conservative Rabbinical Assembly do not consider metzitzah to be required by Jewish law" but you fail to provide any source to this. Do you have a difficult time understanding Talmud (Please explain your own version)? or are you trying to hide certain aspects of Talmud? I will not remove your un-sourced material since it may true but please don't remove properly sourced material. Chabadbris (talk) 05:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
In addition If you do not understand the language of Talmud (as I see with the word Metzitza in your earlier post) you could look up in an English translated Maimonides which also brings everything mentioned in his "book of laws" Laws of Milah Chapter 2, Law 2: "... and afterwards he sucks the circumcision until blood comes out from far places, in order not to come to danger, and anyone who does not suck - we remove him from practice..." Chabadbris (talk) 05:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Notwithstanding the personal views, which I obviously share with you, Chabad, as a frum Jew myself, the article is already clear in that the purpose of metzitzah is to protect the baby's health. We don't need extra quotations from Shas and Rishonim for that. It leaves the realm of the encyclopedic and becomes more POV-pushing. Just as we try and protect this article from those who would use it as an anti-Bris platform, we have to have equal vigilance and prevent it from being a platform which is skewed from being informative to proselytizing. B"H there are sites on the internet which are not bound by wikipedia's neutral policy, and can take a different tone (see  for some). -- Avi (talk) 07:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
If However the same place in Talmud that brings down the requirement also states about it's importance and quotes "and anyone who does not suck - we remove him from practice" - Why do you think that this is not part of the Law.? Furthermore, the article discusses at length about recent opposition to the law - do you really think that it is not relevant to cite the importance brought in Talmud? I have not removed any of the opposition side what is your problem? Do you want to hide the fact the until recently Metzitza was universally excepted? Chabadbris (talk) 16:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
I think the additions you have added are not helpful, and open the article up to accusations of trying to push a point. We do not have to quote Shas here, this isn't WikiShiur or WikiPosek. The article is already clear that the purpose of Metzitzah is protection. Furthermore, the practice is still accepted; the only dispute is whether or not Metztzah B'peh should be done without the sterile tube in between--which would only be addressed in "heintigeh poskim", not in the Rishonim. Multiple authors have indicated that your changes do not have a consensus at this pont. Please make your arguments on the talk page, as ignoring the lack of consensus may be viewed as disruptive editing. Wikipeia functions on consensus. -- Avi (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
It would be fair to clearly state both sides. I is also important that before all of the opposition to clearly state the full law including it's importance that was brought in Talmud alongside with the law. Otherwise how do you understand the opposition.
Also you just added ""Conservative Rabbinical Assembly do not consider metzitzah to be required by Jewish law" could you state your source? You also added that Metzitza is because of "infection" - where is you source to that exact health reason? Please cite sources. Chabadbris (talk) 16:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
On a related note, mentioned this above, but can we do a comparison about whether to spell the 'suction' term as metzitzah / metzitza / mezizah ? Brit_milah#Metzitzah includes a subsection that is rightly titled "oral suction" because that is the meaning of metzitzah b'peh, which is the only thing discussed there.
This emphasis makes sense as this is what the majority of this section is talking about. I have not been able to locate anything in 'oral suction' unrelated to oral suction, so titling it a vague "metzitzah techniques" is intellectually dishonest.
Should anything actually be overlooked, such information can be put into the main metzitzah section, while leaving the oral suction title alone, since over half the metzitzah section is information about oral-based suction. Ranze (talk) 05:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- Titling it Metzitzah B'Peh is even better, since that is consistent with the topic heading. The text describes what the process is. -- Avi (talk) 15:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see the need to post everything in hebrew. Section titles should be concise and easy to spell. Posting the english translation as the section title (suction and oral suction) makes more sense. We can post the hebrew terms and pronunciations in the sections themselves. For other languages we don't tend to literally post them in other terms like that, we translate them when a translation is available, which is the case here. Ranze (talk) 23:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Part of the problem is that מציצה, metzitzah, isn't always translated as "suction" either, I believe. The noun is used to mean "pressure" and "squeezing" as well, and those definitions have bearing in a Bris as well. -- Avi (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- "Pressure" is contextual, if the pressure is created through suction, we should call it suction. As for "squeezing" I'm not clear on how that applies in this instance. Is the mohel using his lips to squeeze the penis to force blood out, in addition to sucking? I can't fathom how this would be done in conjunction here, because while some lip tightness would be needed to create a vacuum seal, anything beyond that would decrease the diameter and interfere with blood flow out of the wound. Regardless of other interpretations, in our section here we explain it as meaning "suction" so based on that, that is what the title should be. If there are less obvious meanings like pressure/squeeze why is a note not even made of that here? Probably because it's clearly irrelevant. When words have multiple meanings but 1 meaning is clear and backed by reference we should just run with that ball. Ranze (talk) 19:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Restating definition multiple times
Ranze, the article as it stands has the translation of Metzitzah in the section that introduces it, and the translation of Metzitzah B'Peh in the section that introduces it. Restating the same thing multiple times in different sections disrupts the flow of the prose whilst adding nothing to the article. That is why I removed your recent edit. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 19:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)