Metsitsah b'peh (MBP) was originally mentioned in halochic texts (the Mishna, approximately 200 CE) as an entirely practical part of the procedure, along with placing cumin (thought to have healing properties at the time) and a bandage on the wound [Mishna Shabbos 19:2]. In the Gemora (written around 400CE as a further discussion and clarification of the Mishna), Rav Papa states that “any mohel who does not suction creates a danger to life, and we remove him from his post”. [Shabbos 133b]. Medical wisdom at the time held that bleeding a wound would help to clean it and prevent infection, as the streaming blood removed impurities. The Rabbinic authorities of the time were actually acknowledging (and bowing to) the medical authorities, and acknowledging that keeping the child healthy was of utmost importance as part of the procedure, the mitzvoh of performing a bris milah. So much so that a mohel who endangered the life of the child was “remove(d) from his post,” rendered unfit to perform a bris at all!
In the centuries of halochic opinion and culture that followed, all authorities recognized MBP as a health measure and not in itself a component of the mitzvoh. There was a single rabbi, the Ran (14th century), who while acknowledging that it was certainly a health measure, was unsure as to whether it should be considered an actual part of the mitzvoh or not. Such a situation is known in halochic discussions as a “da’as yachid,” literally a “lone opinion” and, as would be expected, is not generally given weight.
Regardless, a Rav of no less stature than the Chassm Sofer, who is famous for his opposition to modern influences in halochic practice, even coining a famous play on words that “anything new is forbidden according to the Torah,” makes it clear that not only is MBP not a part of the mitzvoh of bris, [Kochvai Yitzchak, 49-50] but it is clearly a health measure and we should certainly not engage in it if there is a risk to the child’s health. Further, the Chasam Sofer asserts that we should trust “qualified physicians” when determining what is the best way to clean the wound.
Later authorities tried to argue that the Chasam Sofer’s opinion was relevant only to the specific case he was being questioned about and not to any future practice. But such opinions overlook the very clear, broad and powerful statements his response gave, such as “we do not concern ourselves with the mystical when there is even a slight risk to the physical health of the child” [Kochvai Yitzchak, 49], referencing the connection between MBP and certain Kabbalistic ideas. The Chasam Sofer also does not mention any specific case in his response at all, but rather responds to what he views as the primary argument- that MBP is a kabbalistic practice with mystical value, one that thus should have no weight when a health risk is present (which modern medicine clearly indicates is true for the placement of someone’s mouth on the open wound of an infant). He also makes quite clear that we should follow the “qualified physician” when told the best way to clean the wound, acknowledging that MBP was originally (if, now, mistakenly) intended as a hygienic, not halachic, act.
The bottom line is that the Chasam Sofer’s responsa on this issue is perfectly clear. You can read it for yourself: http://onthemainline.blogspot.com/2012/04/chasam-sofers-ruling-on-metzitzah-be.html
Moreover, even if one wanted to agree with those who held that the Chasam Sofer’s heter (leniency) only applied to the individual case, where there was a health risk to the children and the risk of government censure, then one must look only so far as the precise situations we are facing today!
Most vitally and simply, there is a fundamental tenet of Judaism known as “v’chai ba’hem”- “you shall live by them (the commandments)” (Vayikra 18:5), meaning that the sanctity of life trumps almost every commandment, even Shabbos. There is no question among the vast majority of poskim (halochic decisors), rabbis and medical professionals that MBP poses a fatal risk to infants while conveying no health benefits whatsoever. It is time for this practice to stop being treated as a venerable or immutable part of halochic Judaism and instead viewed as the once current, now outdated and quite dangerous, practice that it is. Irresponsibly risking the life of an infant is not the behavior of a Yiras Hashem (G-d-fearing), Torah-observant Jew. Frum Jews must line up on the side of banning this life-threatening practice in a public, visible way.
In the centuries of halochic opinion and culture that followed, all authorities recognized MBP as a health measure and not in itself a component of the mitzvoh. There was a single rabbi, the Ran (14th century), who while acknowledging that it was certainly a health measure, was unsure as to whether it should be considered an actual part of the mitzvoh or not. Such a situation is known in halochic discussions as a “da’as yachid,” literally a “lone opinion” and, as would be expected, is not generally given weight.
Regardless, a Rav of no less stature than the Chassm Sofer, who is famous for his opposition to modern influences in halochic practice, even coining a famous play on words that “anything new is forbidden according to the Torah,” makes it clear that not only is MBP not a part of the mitzvoh of bris, [Kochvai Yitzchak, 49-50] but it is clearly a health measure and we should certainly not engage in it if there is a risk to the child’s health. Further, the Chasam Sofer asserts that we should trust “qualified physicians” when determining what is the best way to clean the wound.
Later authorities tried to argue that the Chasam Sofer’s opinion was relevant only to the specific case he was being questioned about and not to any future practice. But such opinions overlook the very clear, broad and powerful statements his response gave, such as “we do not concern ourselves with the mystical when there is even a slight risk to the physical health of the child” [Kochvai Yitzchak, 49], referencing the connection between MBP and certain Kabbalistic ideas. The Chasam Sofer also does not mention any specific case in his response at all, but rather responds to what he views as the primary argument- that MBP is a kabbalistic practice with mystical value, one that thus should have no weight when a health risk is present (which modern medicine clearly indicates is true for the placement of someone’s mouth on the open wound of an infant). He also makes quite clear that we should follow the “qualified physician” when told the best way to clean the wound, acknowledging that MBP was originally (if, now, mistakenly) intended as a hygienic, not halachic, act.
The bottom line is that the Chasam Sofer’s responsa on this issue is perfectly clear. You can read it for yourself: http://onthemainline.blogspot.com/2012/04/chasam-sofers-ruling-on-metzitzah-be.html
Moreover, even if one wanted to agree with those who held that the Chasam Sofer’s heter (leniency) only applied to the individual case, where there was a health risk to the children and the risk of government censure, then one must look only so far as the precise situations we are facing today!
Most vitally and simply, there is a fundamental tenet of Judaism known as “v’chai ba’hem”- “you shall live by them (the commandments)” (Vayikra 18:5), meaning that the sanctity of life trumps almost every commandment, even Shabbos. There is no question among the vast majority of poskim (halochic decisors), rabbis and medical professionals that MBP poses a fatal risk to infants while conveying no health benefits whatsoever. It is time for this practice to stop being treated as a venerable or immutable part of halochic Judaism and instead viewed as the once current, now outdated and quite dangerous, practice that it is. Irresponsibly risking the life of an infant is not the behavior of a Yiras Hashem (G-d-fearing), Torah-observant Jew. Frum Jews must line up on the side of banning this life-threatening practice in a public, visible way.
