I have a few points to make here.
When the Gemara writes to do (or not to do) something because of a sakanah, its mostly accepted not to do so nowadays. Harry seems to think that its up to our judgment.
Cases of death using the traditional Metzitza method are statistically irrelevant. Practically zero. With todays' preparations done by mohalim, I'd say its below zero.
Maybe we should ban mikva'os because there is always a risk of drowning. Ludicrous.
Now that we established that the risk is (nearly) nonexistant, lets turn our attention to Rabbi Tendler.
There are many factors pointing to the position that Rabbi Tendler was abusing his position to further his personal agenda.
On a recorded tape, you can hear Tendler giving a lecture where he mention the specific mohel he was fighting against. He then spewed forth some vile personal and general statements against that mohel and his community. There are many more WOM examples that people in the know spoke about. I've heard from some that Tendler actually threatened the mohel publicly; and the mohel refused to back off. He then promised to put him out of 'business'. That never happened, thankfully.
By going to government authorities, Tendler was trying to force his decision on others. He was therefore rightly vilified.
There also remain issues that would crop up if we allowed the government to interfere with religious issues.
Past improprieties by Tendler are well known, the most famous example being the many false teshuvos he printed in the final volume of Igros Moshe, which he produced after R' Moshe's passing. There's a reason its called Igros Tendler.
A dirtier story is regarding his shidduch, but we'll leave it for now.
Update: A few gems I found on the thread.
Harry says:
Metzitza B'Peh has no basis in either the TSBK or TSBP. It is only a traditionla method that evolved in order to accomplich Metztitza.
Birs Mila is a D'Oraisa. Slight difference. To eliminate all risk by avoiding a porcedure that has no basis in Halacha is a lot different than eliminating a slight risk by violating an Issur D'Oraisa.According to these who follow the psak of the Maharam Shick it is indeed me'akev. So there, you said it.
Harry says:
I tend to agree with your approach. It is a mostly repugnant notion to me to get govenment involved in legislating Halachic matters. This post was more of a Limud Zechus to Rabbi Tenndler, a man whose Halachic and medical opinions I generally trust.Great!
15 comments:
Harry is a first class am haaratz. Please don't don't give him any attention.
It was more a post of my opinions on this matter. Harry was just the issue opener.
See Mishna Brura Shin Lamed (Biur Halacha) where he (the Chofetz Chaim himselff) permits Metztiza b'sphog (a guaze) EVEN on Shabbos. If the Litvishe Olam would not be lookig over their shoulder at the chassidishe velt this would be a non-issue. At least it was a non-issue to the Chofetz Chaim!
Correction - it is siman shin lamed Alef
In the Chasidishe velt its believed that this is one of the things written by the son of the Chofetz Chaim, among other things, who was considerably more "open-minded".
That is the most ridiculous assertion I have ever heard regarding the veracity of the Mishna Berura. Unlike Igros Moshe, where there is documented emendatins and changes in text in editions published before and after Rav Moshe zt"l there is no one who has challenged the authenticity of the Mishan Berura. For Chasidim to do so is offensive and shows a total disregard to the litvishe mesorah. For bnai Yeshiva to accept that idea is absurd and runs counter to the balance of that halachic enclopedia which we all follow.
Not totally ridiculous since its well known that the Chofetz Chaim entrusted his son to write some of it. IIRC, his son wrote most of chelek beis. So there is *some* justification.
Were not talking about a fraud here, as in the case of R' Moshe.
I'm not taking a side here, just clarifying the issue.
> In the Chasidishe velt its believed that this is one of the things written by the son of the Chofetz Chaim
I think this excuse comes up far too much. In the main part of the post, you criticized Rav Tendler for altering some of Rav Feinstein's posts. I'm guessing those are the ones on end of life definitions which have always been controversial.
Now when someone points out that the Chofetz Chayim permitted using a s'fog, it's because his son changed the text or added it in?
What about the Chasam Sofer who straight out permits indirect metzitzah?
What Rav Tendler did is well know, and wrong. He did it to the teshuva you mention, among others.
What the Chofetz Chaim's son did was totally right! His father asked him to write some of it on his behalf. That doesn't mean we have to follow it though. I'm not saying this is the case here, but some chasidim do, and its understandable.
On the Chasam Sofer, they claim that it was only a hora'as sha'ah. They point out that his biggest talmid, the Maharam Schick, writes that its me'akev mide'oraisah.
Yet, it does sound somewhat apologetic, so I'm leaving it up to you to decide which side you want to take. But there are valid opinions on both sides of the debate.
I still think that its wrong here to involve the government.
>But there are valid opinions on both sides of the debate.
I agree 100%. I don't have a problem with folks who insist on the validity of metzitzah b'peh directly. I do hav a problem with those folks who insist on it and then say that theirs is the only proper way.
A great discussion on the topic can be found in Rav Avraham Steinberg's Encyclopedia of Jewish Medical Halachah from Feldheim. There's plenty of support for both sides.
BTW, your statement "Cases of death using the traditional Metzitza method are statistically irrelevant." could be seen as misleading. Yes, there are no cases of death but infants who contact disease that sticks with them for life also count. I personally know a child who broke out with herpes on the tip of his penis shortly after his mohel, who had a visible cold sore on his mouth the day of the bris, did direct metzitzah b'peh.
Likewise, I have a problem with these that insist that it must not be done.
There's no excuse for a mohel who had a sore on his mouth. None.
It was proven without doubt that Rav Tendler did not call the health department. You can access the letter from the health department stating this online. Secondly, if you do a little research, you can also find the names of the doctors who did call the health department - after they were mandated to do so after a baby died!
Also, to say that Rav Tendler edited Tshuvos also means you accuse Rav Dovid and Rav Reuven Feinstein of going along with it. Regardless, you clearly have not ever opened the Igros. If you did, you would know that Rav Mordecai Tendler and Rav Shatai Rappaport edited the Igros, not Rav Moshe Tendler. If you open the 8th volume, you will see a letter of support signed by Rav Moshe Tendler, Rav Reuven Feinstein and Rav Dovid Feinstein. (This appears in the Dorah Moshe as well). Finally, for those who care, the mohel in question recently did a Bris out of NY - THE BABY GOT SICK.
You owe Rav Tendler an apology.
"It was proven without doubt that Rav Tendler did not call the health department."
The discussion is on what Rabbi Tendler *advocated*, not what he did. The tapes are there.
"Regardless, you clearly have not ever opened the Igros."
Going ad hominem really shows the strength of your argument.
"If you did, you would know that Rav Mordecai Tendler and Rav Shatai Rappaport edited the Igros, not Rav Moshe Tendler."
Do you know these two other people?
The editing and additions is a well known fact, one that doesn't need arguing. AFAIK, the teshuvos in the 8th vol. are generally not attributed to Rav Moshe.
Why should there be a discussion on what Rav Tendler "advocated?" The controversery erupted becuase people LIED and said he went to the health department. You said so yourself in your post.
What "ad hominem?" You are wrong on the facts. Open up the 8th Chelek to the introduction - how can you possible say these Tshuvos were not Rav Moshe's withough question Rav Dovid and Rav Reuven? Based on what evidence do you say otherwise? The editing and additions were CLEARLY stated that they were not part of the original Tshuva and put them in a DIFFERENT SCRIPT so there would be no confusion. Adding source notes is not something that qualifies as forgery, especially when the authors state where they did so and for what reasons.
What different does it make if I know Rav Mordecai and Rav Shabtai?
I am curious: What evidence would you require in order to apologize to Rav Tendler about the accusation made against him regarding MBP and the Igros?
"Why should there be a discussion on what Rav Tendler "advocated?"
Why not? He advocated going to the health department. This is a pretty strong indictment of his position/views.
I'm not claiming that every one of the teshuvos are fabricated. that would be ridiculous.
"how can you possible say these Tshuvos were not Rav Moshe's withough question Rav Dovid and Rav Reuven?"
Because of Rav Tendlers track record of "advocated" coercion.
"Adding source notes is not something that qualifies as forgery"
Did I ever claim that the notes and annotations are forgeries? I'm talking about the teshuvos themselves.
"What different does it make if I know Rav Mordecai and Rav Shabtai?"
If you knew you might have known. I'm not about to discuss this publicly on my blog.
"What evidence would you require in order to apologize to Rav Tendler about the accusation made against him regarding MBP and the Igros?"
Regarding MBP, much. All you've differed with me is whether he went to the authorities himself or whether he advocated it. Both tell me enough about the person, given the recordings.
Regarding the Igros: If you bring me the actual ksav of R' Moshe's handwriting writing these teshuvos then you won me.
It won't happen.
Post a Comment