http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/283125
Most coronavirus patients in Israel were infected at home, according to a report by Israel Hayom Tuesday morning.
According to the report, research conducted by the Knesset Research
and Information Center, nearly two-thirds (65.8%) of people infected
with the coronavirus were infected at home, while just 2.2% were
infected at synagogues.
The government rejected calls by the Health Ministry and National
Security Council to close all synagogues in the country, but did impose
new restrictions, limiting the number of worshippers to 19 at a time.
Do you remember a few years ago there was a spike in the number of milah-related herpes infections and it then came out that parents were being told to deny it had anything to do with the milah, or else?
ReplyDeleteI would like to know how this survey was done. Is it honest or are people being told "Don't you dare say you got it at yeshiva! Say you got it at home!"?
The suggestion that Metzitzah B'peh is involved in the transmission of the herpes simplex virus has never been conclusively proven. In fact, the link is not as "scientifically" obvious as one may think. The vast majority of neonatal herpes cases in NY City are males who did NOT have MBP and FEMALES.
ReplyDeleteThe only conclusive way of identifying the source of a herpes infection is DNA tests. We would need to test the DNA of the practitioner, and compare it with the DNA of the virus in the baby. Otherwise, the baby could have gotten it from someone else.
Yeah, and smoking isn't proven to cause lung cancer, just like the famous Posek said.
ReplyDeleteThe Rockland County Health Department, with the close cooperation of the local Orthodox community, did a two year study, which was reported in 2015.
ReplyDeleteOver the two-year period that the protocol was in effect, eight cases were presented to the Rockland County Health Department. Five were conclusively determined NOT to be HSV-1. Of the remaining three, the mohalim were tested under the terms of protocol. One led to an inconclusive result, as not enough virus was detected in the mohel to warrant DNA testing. In the other two cases it was conclusively determined that the mohalim were NOT a DNA match to the respective infants.
The Rockland County Department of Health had 100 PERCENT cooperation of all mohalim in the three confirmed cases to be tested under the protocol. In one case, the mohel had to travel numerous times — at his own expense, he wouldn’t take money for the mitzvah — from Montreal to Monsey for his testing.
Surveys are not scientific data.
ReplyDeleteBias makes this type of information completely unreliable. Of course anyone who gets infected will insist they got it at home not from the guy they shmoozed with during davening. Who or what exactly are they getting infected from in the home unless someone else there is already infected? So then where did that person get it?
This whole report is nonsense.
can you provide a source for this report?
ReplyDeletethe link is in the post
ReplyDeleteThe post is about Covid19, whereas I.R. is bringing a report about Herpes transmission, but has not provided a link for it
ReplyDeletetry a different browser
ReplyDeleteResults of Rockland Tests of Mohalim Puts Pressure on NYC
ReplyDeletehttps://hamodia.com/2015/01/12/results-rockland-tests-mohalim-puts-pressure-nyc/
NEW YORK - After the results of a protocol successfully put into place by the Rockland County Health Department with the close cooperation of the local Orthodox community became public, there have been mounting calls on the NYC Health Department to revise its policy on metzitzah b’peh (MBP)...
Merci -
ReplyDeletehttps://jewishweek.timesofisrael.com/culture-divide-seen-animating-bris-debate/
Since 2000, 24 babies have contracted neonatal herpes
following MBP. Two died and two were brain damaged, according to the
Centers for Disease Control. Some 5,200 babies — 48 percent of all Jewish baby boys in New York City — had a bris with metzitzah b’peh in
2006, according to a study by Awi Federgruen, a professor of
quantitative methodology at Columbia Business School.
After a baby died following MBP in 2005, the Bloomberg
administration began trying to convince the charedi population to switch
to a technique in which the mohel sucks on a sterile glass tube to draw
blood from the wound, a method that is widely used and has beenapproved by the Rabbinical Council of America, the largest umbrella organization for Orthodox rabbis in the United States. In 2012, the Bloomberg administration began requiring parents to sign consent forms
detailing the risks of MBP. There was no enforcement, however, and the
forms were greatly resented but almost never used.
WOW!!!!
ReplyDeleteNaturally, the Left is covering this up!
Jewish leaders, for years, had petitioned New York City to employ a fair and equitable method of testing all parties who might have transmitted the virus in a neonatal herpes case – not merely the mohel – to pin down the source with precision.
ReplyDeleteThe City consistently declined to employ DNA testing, the universally recognized gold standard in determining the source of an infection. Senior health officials insisted such testing was too difficult/expensive/inconvenient/unnecessary.
I guess that it's easier to bash Mohels, rather than to take the trouble to make a scientific determination.
What's the point that you're trying to make?
ReplyDeleteIt is, unfortunately, always easy to bash religion. Moreover, we live in very perilous times, where G-d is almost considered a dirty word, and the "morals" of society are considered an outright abomination by Hashem!
ReplyDeletethis is an old discussion already
ReplyDeleteMBP is not safe
MBP is rooted in the Talmud, and has been safely practiced for thousands of years.
ReplyDeleteThe suggestion that MBP is involved in the transmission of the herpes simplex virus has never been conclusively proven, and the link is not as "scientifically" obvious as one may think.
As long as New York City ignores science, and declines to employ DNA testing, then the City is actually putting the infants’ lives at risk by allowing these other transmitters to continue to have unhindered access to children.
What it means in the Talmud is Down to interpretation.
ReplyDeleteSafe? Do you know child mortality stats of each generation?
Hsv is dangerous,as are other virus.
Who else is infecting these babies?
I know of no differences of opinion in the “poskim” about what MBP means in the Talmud. It means, what it sounds like it means.
ReplyDeleteIf babies would be dying left, right, and center after MBP, people would notice, and it would have been discussed.
I agree that HSV is dangerous, but it has never been conclusively proven, that MBP is involved in its transmission. The vast majority of neonatal herpes cases in NY City are males who did NOT have MBP and FEMALES.
Who else is infecting these babies? An entirely plausible answer is that herpes can easily be transmitted by a caregiver or family member shedding the virus who had recently touched his or her mouth; since a recently circumcised baby is more vulnerable to infection at the circumcision site, and that babies tend to get diapered several times a day.
Chatam Sofer understands, or if i am mistaken, paskens differently from how you present it.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean by "DNA tests? Do you think each virus carrier has an individualized DNA sequence in their viral particles? Or are you suggesting that persons pass on their own DNA and that should be tested?
It should be bleeding obvious, that someone carrying a virus can pass it on to an open wound if they put their herpetic lips on the wound!
See what these criminals are up to:
ReplyDeletehttps://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT04460703?term=Vaccine&cond=Covid19&cntry=US&draw=2&view=record
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04460703?term=Vaccine&cond=Covid19&cntry=US&draw=2
https://www.bitchute.com/video/CS2jj0lq6xKI/
ReplyDeleteLast
ReplyDeleteweek we warned readers to be cautious about new COVID-19 vaccines,
highlighting how key parts of the clinical trials are being skipped as
big pharma will not be held accountable for adverse side effects for
administering the experimental drugs.
A senior executive from
AstraZeneca, Britain's second-largest drugmaker, told Reuters that his
company was just granted protection from all legal action if the
company's vaccine led to damaging side effects.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/red-flags-soar-big-pharma-will-be-exempt-covid-19-vaccine-liability-claims
What science is being used in tests reported by hamodia?
ReplyDeleteThe Chatam Sofer did not posit that the Talmud was absolutely NOT referring to oral suction. He merely argued, that it MAY ALSO be fulfilled with other methods.
ReplyDeleteSo unless you present an opposing source, I stand behind my original statement, that there are no differences of opinion in the “poskim” about what MBP meant in the Talmud. It means, what it sounds like it means. The debate among the later "poskim" merely revolved around whether other methods could be SUBSTITUTED.
Explanation of "DNA tests":
https://yated.com/landmark-program-uncovers-false-positive-in-neonatal-herpes-case/
"The DNA program – the very first of its kind anywhere – can track the source of HSV-1 by comparing samples of the virus in the afflicted infant with samples of DNA from the mohel, the baby's parents and the main caregivers. The testing is done in the State's Wadsworth Laboratory in Albany, the one facility in New York – and perhaps in the country – that performs DNA testing of this nature."
To my knowledge, no one today has even suggested that a Mohel who is clearly infected should be allowed to perform MBP. In addition, according to the Rockland County protocol, if a mohel is linked to the baby, then the mohel to no longer perform MBP for the rest of his life anywhere, locally or internationally.
'So unless you present an opposing source, I stand behind my original
ReplyDeletestatement, that there are no differences of opinion in the “poskim”
about what MBP meant in the Talmud. It means, what it sounds like it
means. The debate among the later "poskim" merely revolved around
whether other methods could be SUBSTITUTED'.--and Only in certain cases
The mbp in Talmud is for health and safety. In later times, lets say hateva nishtaneh. So thats what the chatam sofer was saying.
ReplyDeleteOur resident terrorist has returned once again, this time citing a Jew hater's conspiracy website, in hopes of getting more Jews infected and killed by coronavirus by inciting baseless fears about vaccines.
ReplyDelete"To my knowledge, no one today has even suggested that a Mohel who is clearly infected should be allowed to perform MBP. "
ReplyDeleteThat would be attempted murder, and it would be insane to have this stance.
How would you know whether a mohel is infected?!
thank you IR
ReplyDeleteTHE website of wadsworth says they only identify the virus.
the sources you bring do not seem to understand what they are talking about. there are different tests for hsv 1, but a newborn may not produce antigens for it.
https://www.wadsworth.org/term/pt-categories/identification-of-herpes-simplex-virus-hsv-and-related-viruses
Detecting a virus, eg by PCR will not necessarily provide the source of the virus. If you test the DNA of a mohel, it has to be a highly specific test. Nrither yated nor Wadsworth tell us what these supposed dna tests are.
Don't talk in riddles.
ReplyDeleteThe proponents of mbp are claiming that there is no causal link between mohel virus and baby catching it. They also deny that those who have caught it were infected by mohelim.
ReplyDeleteThe chatam sofer was one of the last great rabbis. He said using a sponge satisfies the requirements and is safer than mbp. Hareidim try to expand his chumras but walk back his kulas
According to the Rockland County protocol, the mohelim agreed to be tested if any of the babies came down with the infection.
ReplyDelete""To my knowledge, no one today has even suggested that a Mohel who is clearly infected should be allowed to perform MBP. ""
ReplyDeleteI asked then how would you know whether a mohel is infected and you answered that they agreed to be tested if/after a baby gets infected c'v.
This of course does not answer the question. No one would suggest a currently infected mohel perform MBP because that would be attempted murder of a baby. The problem is, that out of all mohelim in the world, in a current snapshot of reality as it is right now, we have no way of knowing who is currently infected and who is not. The health department argument is that since we do not know, then we need to take precaution as if they may be infected. (Unless you propose testing them beforehand. That would be an alternative that makes sense).
The mbp proponents' argument is a very weak one in response to that of the health department: essentially asserting that *We don't have to know if any mohelim are infected,* we can take the risk, and then if a baby happens to catch this potentially deadly infection, then we'll test to see if it was from the mohel.
A reckless stance backed by incompetent argumentation.
It has always been a disaster of epic proportions when a government mixes into our religion!
ReplyDeleteEvery single person can be presumed by "chazaka" that they are infection free, and there is no reason to assume otherwise.
ReplyDeleteIf a question arises about that presumption, due to the fact the baby was found to be infected, then we can test the mohel, and also ALL the other people who came into contact with the baby. There is no reason for the knee-jerk reaction to automatically assume that it was due to the mohel.
I can appreciate government being concerned for the safety of its citizens. However that must be equally balanced with protecting the Constitutional right of free exercise of religion.
ReplyDeleteIf the government acts in good faith, then the citizens will reciprocate, and cooperate with the government.
An example of such cooperation was in Monsey, where the Health Department was willing to employ DNA testing to scientifically track down the source of infection, and there was 100 PERCENT cooperation of all the "mohalim" in the three confirmed cases to be tested under the protocol.
In contrast, NY City refused to employ a fair and equitable method of testing ALL parties who might have transmitted the virus in a neonatal herpes case, not merely the "mohel", to pin down the source with precision. Thus NY City is actually putting the infants’ lives at risk, by allowing these other transmitters to continue to have unhindered access to children.
chazaka ? Nonsense! there is sakkanat nefesh here. Perhaps a handful of babies dying doesn't count in your book, but your statement is totally ..without any sense to it.
ReplyDeleteAs usual, you continue to nail it, precisely! Thank you, most kindly for such an informative posting!
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure that you know the parameters of the laws of "chazaka".
ReplyDeleteThere is no particular "sakkanat nefesh" to be concerned about, when the "mohel" is not known to have any specific illness.
where are they spelled out?
ReplyDeletemaybe you are making up your own "laws" - you cannot make a chazaka that pink fairies dance on the ceiling.
ReplyDelete"During 2015–2016, prevalence of herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) was
47.8%, and prevalence of herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2) was 11.9%." Now it may well be lower amongst frum people, but it still exists.
BTW, the gemara makes the chazaka that there are no Jewish homosexuals. do you think that chazaka is still valid? Sadl, not only are there such things, but in great numbers, they have pride parades, shuls, etc. And they even exist in the Hareidi and RZ worlds.
The Chareidi opposition to Pride parade is neither to do with the prohibition in the Torah, nor with the chillul Hashem. it is more to do with the fact that this phenomenon violates a chazaka made in the gemara - so either deny reality, or deny a chazaka.
If this has already happened before in previous cases, why would there be such a chazaka?
ReplyDeletemaybe you can also make the "chazaka" that frum people do not carry covid-19, and therefore do not need to wear masks and can carry on davening in crowded minyanim like before, since a chazaka overturns teva, and Jews are immune from all natural dangers.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with this line of thinking is that it is from the school of chassid shoteh, which you seem to adhere to.
The Novominsker Rebbe is dead, from covid 19. A are many other fine frum people and rabbonim. His successor as gadol hador, Rav Asher weiss makes no such errors like you are. he fully accepts the dangers of the virus.
Now, whilst HSV1 /2 does not kill as many people as Covid 19, it is actually more prevalent in the US population. That means approx 50% (within certain age groups ) carry that virus. That does not yet appear to be the case with Covid 19.
The real poskim do not make idiotic chazakas.
No such thing - there is no halachic requirement to be an idiot.
ReplyDeleteSometimes a chazaka is not worth the paper it is written on. In Shabbetai Zvi's time, they produced signatures of meah rabbanim vouching for him being Moshiach. I read this in Scholem's book on the subject. Then , amazingly, Lubavitch did the same thing about their rebbe (chizkat moshiach) ! There were some Gedolim also who signed for him, including Mordechai Eliyahu on one end of the religious spectrum, and the debrezer Rav - Moshe Stern on the other end.
ReplyDeleteAs i said, these nonsense claims, chazakas, are worthless , regardless of who makes the claim.
Anyone who takes science seriously and pursues the truth regardless of its consequences, will take this view.
The person who puts religiosity above rational thought will stumble in the most absurd claims, all the time rejecting any rationality which threatens his viewpoint.
so you place science above the Torah?
ReplyDeleteI don't understand your question.
ReplyDeleteWhat does the word "this" in your sentence, refer to?
The entries on "Chazaka", in the "Encyclopedia Talmudit", would be a good place to start.
ReplyDeleteDo you? Why did you stop going to minyan when the pandemic hit?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.5tjt.com/the-talmudic-encyclopedia-nears-completion/
ReplyDeleteNice, but I don't have it.
Rav bar Ilan ztl, Rav Zevin ztl . Is it used in those who oppose university and rabbanut?
Mohelim having a virus, transferred to the baby.
ReplyDeleteChazal employed various chazakot - that doesn't entitle you to make nonsense and rodef type claims . It makes you rodef b'yirsael reader.
ReplyDeleteunc cle - are there Jewish homosexuals?
ReplyDeleteIf you deny that there are, you would make a fool of yourself.
If you admit that they exist - you deny the Talmud - which makes chazaka that they do not exist.
B'H the Talmud has a tractate named Horayos, which deals with errors (or zadonot) of the Sanhedrin (foundation of the oral law).
B'H the Yerushalmi refutes the sifri which claims left is right , and right is left , if the sages say so!
halacha requires input from science - not subordination
ReplyDeletesakkanat nefesh overrides all - applies to viruses.
ReplyDeleteDo you think the sages had from Sinai the statement about left being right and right being left - and the otehr Sages of Yerushalmi had from Sinai the exact opposite?
Or did they use seichel - logic?
who says they are disagreeing?
ReplyDeleteI like Rabbi Drazin, thank you for the link.
ReplyDeleteNone of the 3 positions he concludes with state that they are not daigreeing. The Ran and apaprently Rashi take the Sifri. The Rambam takes the Yerushalmi position.
Most iterestingly of all , Rav Mecklengburg who unites the Written and Oral Torahs suggests that Rashi's printed version is wrong becasue it is absurd, and that we must reject this!
The middle position is kind of wishy - washy - if you are certain they are wrong, then don't accept, otherwise do.
I will add that I'm not saying the Rabbis are usually wrong - they are usually right. there are many indications in Shas, in Tenach, and later on, that influences - bribes, and "davar" can pervert the judgement of dayanim. Davar is a psychological matter - e.g. good friend of a doctor, so help out his daughter etc. Other davar could be being blown away by a Tzadik, then thinking all of a sudden he is the moshiach! etc. Or someone like Shuvu banim, both a "taddik" and a rasha gamur.
ReplyDeleteAu contraire. You're the one making "rodef" like claims.
ReplyDeleteYou claim that Mohelim who do MBP are "rodfim", and you're now being "rodef" those Mohelim.
והאלקים יבקש את נרדף.
(Koheles 3:15)
I can't speak for others, but most of the Haredim I know, have no qualms about using the Encyclopedia Talmudit, and many shul libraries have invested in buying a set for the use of their congregation.
ReplyDeleteHow was this association established as fact?
ReplyDeleteCircumstantial evidence?
I challenge you to reference the page in the Talmud; that allegedly states, that there is a "chazaka" that Jewish homosexuals don't exist.
ReplyDeleteIf they carry viruses, they are. If they have no virus, they are not.
ReplyDeletevery good - Berel?
ReplyDeletewhat is the purpose of the challenge?
ReplyDeleteKid. 82a
ר' יהודה אומר לא ירעה כו' תניא אמרו לו לרבי יהודה לא נחשדו
ישראל על משכב זכור ולא על הבהמה
They are not "suspected" - this means it is predicated on the assumption that there are no Jewish men who pratice homsexuality. That is a chazaka!
The purpose of this challenge was to illustrate your mischaracterization of the words of the Talmud, with regard to homosexuality, in particular; and to illustrate your misunderstanding of the function of “chazakos”, in general.
ReplyDelete1. The challenge was to point to a text that mentions the word "chazaka". The Talmud doesn't mention that word. You read that into the text.
2. The “chazaka”, presumption, that a person isn’t a “rasha”, known as “chezkas kashrus” or “chezkas tzidkus”, is not found in the Talmud, and is only mentioned in the Rishonim.
3. The challenge was to point to a text that posits “that Jewish homosexuals don't exist”. The text you refer to does NOT indicate this. It merely says that we don’t suspect Jewish people of committing homosexual acts, and therefore a Jewish male may be in seclusion with another Jewish male.
Is this to say, that there are no Jewish men in the world who practice homosexuality? Is this to say, that Jewish homosexuals don't exist in reality? The text doesn’t support that at all. Is this to say that the particular person doesn’t have any same-sex attraction? The text also doesn’t indicate that. It merely says that he won’t commit the homosexual act.
I had to read your comments a few times, but you are changing your goalposts even between your 2 posts.
ReplyDelete1) you originally asked where there is a chazaka, not whehter they used the word chazaka.
2) Chezkas kashrus not being in the Talmud - very interesting, and also validates the fact that the Rishonim were not as smart as the Tannaim.
3) A man who doesn not act in mishkav zachar is not guilty of mishkav zachar, even if he has attraction. when I pointed to gay pride, and the abundance of homosexuals, or previously i cited Reb Dr de haan, it was not his thoughts that were the main thing, but his acts. Also, teh torah forbids Mishkav zachar. So you are trying to find a loophiole for the non practicing feigele. But it is clear that the Torah, the Talmud and even I refer to the practicing homosexual (as in gay pride).
Now to the main part of your error:
You write some pilpul, but then you rech this conclusion " It simply says that we don’t suspect that this particular person will commit the homosexual act (which could merely mean that we don’t suspect that he would act on his same-sex attraction"
The daf I quoted (from sefaria) says "lo nechshadim Yisrael" i.e. Israel (Jews) are not suspected of mishkav z. It is not a particular person, but any Jewish male, regardless of his background, familiarity with him etc.
Also, you are injecting your own assumption - namely that the person has pre-existing same sex attraction. that simply is not written, and it does not apply to Yisrael in general. A small, or chas v'shalom not so small sector may have such tendencies, but not all (although in Yeshivas, they perhaps train and expect males to express their sexuality with other males , since being attracted to women is such a terrible thing in the sick and soteh yeshiva mind).
Now, a syllogism is a form of deductive reasoning. I use the english word syllogism, because Ramchal's book on learning Talmud uses this word too.
the syllogism is as follows:
Jews (Yisrael) are not suspected of practicing homosexuality (mishka zachar)
From this we can deduce that the Sages who made this statement held (chazaka) that there are not any jews who practice homsosexuality (mishkav z.)
If there were Jews who practiced that forbidden d'oraita, and the sages were aware of it, then they are covering up or denying the facts. If they are not aware of it, then they are simpy mistaken. Perhaps in their time and place, according to their surveys, there was no evidence of it occuring. If that is the case, the assumptions upon which they based this statement had validity in a specific time and location, but not beyond that. In which case, their chazaka is no longer factually valid.
It seems, old chap, you have a poor understanding of how halacha works. An example - in Rav Moshe's time, he paskened that you do nto need to check your vegetables for insects. But now we do. His chazaka was based on the empiical evidence of the time,that DDT was used in agriculture, and thus insects are not prevalen in vegetables. But DDT is no longer used, and so his presumption/halacha no longer has validity. Thsi is not an attack on Rav Moshe. (This example I read in Rav Bleich's articles on halacha).
So, it seems that you are misunderstanding what the Gemara says or unable to make logical deductions from what their statement says. But you are also mischaracterizing the Gemra as referring only to one case , whereas they are making a gernal rule about Yisrael!