Talk:Brit milah

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Judaism (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Primary sources[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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) )
You can't use dictionaries either, as they are also primary sources in this context. What is meant by a word in Modern Hebrew may not be what is meant by that same word in Mishnaic Hebrew. Jayjg (talk) 23:53, 6 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)
You still need to find proper sources; these aren't appropriate. You also can't put just anything you want in front an existing citation; citations can only be used to support material they actually support. Jayjg (talk) 17:40, 20 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 [1] 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)

How does an editor make a request for a citation or point out that a claim is being made without a citation? There is at least one important example in the metsitsah section. Boundandheard (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Brit milah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

metzitzah b’peh[edit]

Is metzitzah b'peh considered as pedophilia? Why or why not? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:4901:6A90:99A0:761C (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Brit milah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Anesthetic[edit]

This claim is not true:

    Most prominent acharonim rule that the mitzvah of brit milah lies in the pain it causes, and anesthetic, sedation, or ointment should generally not be used.[14]

It is the opposite of what I have been taught by several mohelim. Pain is to be avoided, period, especially for babies. For adult converts, there are halachic issues where it is preferable, but not required, to stay awake during the procedure, but pain is not a required element. I also cannot verify the above claim by any other means, including books on the subject in my own personal library and online research. But perhaps the most troubling aspect is that the citation is false. The name of the publisher is misspelled. The book is rather obscure, but I did finally find the author's website. The online table of contents for the book shows that the title of the cited chapter is false. It is not in that book.

    Eliezer Waldenberg, Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg, Shmuel Wosner, Moshe Feinstein and others agree that the child should not be sedated, although pain relieving ointment may be used under certain conditions; Shmuel Wosner particularly asserts that the act ought to be painful, as per Psalms 44:23.[14]

The above line is also of questionable veracity. Again, the citation is to the same non-existent work. The text above implies that pain reduction is not acceptable for brit milah. See this link for refutation, especially as concerns Rav Weinberg's attitude. The above quote doesn't fairly represent Moshe Feinstein's position either.

I don't edit very much on Wikipedia, so I'm looking for advice. Can I simply delete these lines and the citation? The remaining text will need some cleanup, which I will do.

Radicaldad (talk) 11:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of phrase "current medical knowledge"[edit]

In the section "Ritual Components", subsection "Metzitzah", there is a line which states "this step is in order to draw some blood from deep inside the wound to prevent danger to the baby,[33] and current medical knowledge confirms the benefits of the practice.[34] (emphasis mine)

The reference provided is not a medical reference, nor is any medical source properly referenced in the link provided. I think an adequate source should be able to either: 1) demonstrate that in circumcisions done in a hospital or medical setting, a similar "suction" type maneuver is also employed because it is recognized that this is helpful, or 2) provide empirical evidence that, even though a medical doctor would not employ any kind of suction following a circumcision performed in such a setting, there is somehow a benefit in the setting of the Brit milah.

If neither of these things can be shown to be true, then the phrase "current medical knowledge confirms the benefit of the practice" should be removed.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:FAEC:3A00:5042:9317:1885:4FAE (talk) 09:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


"Some Jewish families practice brit shalom instead." <- This should not be mentioned in the intro paragraph because those families are a very tiny minority. ImTheIP (talk) 22:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)