This blood covering is a theme that is revisited over and over by God when making a covenant with man.
After Adam sinned against God, he was removed from the Garden. The plan of God changed for the adamic race and he made a new covenant and covered Adam with it. The skins.
If this idea of shed blood, something dying for sin, something being sacrificed or burned to God to cover or atone for those sins wasnt instituted at the Garden, why would Abel be memorializing in Gen 4?
@IamaZionistGoy Yes, but unfortunately for your point of view, one can not skin an animal without shedding blood.
The sin in which Adam committed against God was punishable by death.
Genesis 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die
Rather this transgression in your eyes required "korban khatat" or "korban asham" it required sacrifice none the less
I was hoping to hear you speak of the blood covenant after I read a couple of the comments here.
Every time God made a covenant with the Jewish nation, he sealed that covenant with the shedding of blood. Wen he made his covenant with Adam and Eve and covered their sin, he covered them with animal skins. There could be no animal skins without first that shedding of blood.
@AlYassou3Rabbi sorry pal it doesn't say that in my Bible so you made that up .nowhere does it say what kind of skin or that animals were killed,nor is there a blood covenant.you are bloody wrong about your ASSumptions son.
@rabbichaimmoshe Yeah sure, he gave them a second skin. Sure, both of them
Can you post a single verse to support that? NO !!!
I was thinking the same thing with your summation that circumcision was in effect before Abraham, when it was God who gave the law of circumcision to Abram in Genesis 17.
@AlYassou3Rabbi there is a midrash that it was an extension of their own nails. furthrmore why could there not be a skin made by G-D without a death of an animal?
how about shedding ? how about wool? how about creating a fur? you are speaking
@rabbichaimmoshe These are all possibilities of course, and there is no definitive answer, but.......
Genesis is the book of beginnings, and this idea of a covering for sin is important in the Jewish teachings. Lets not forget that the High Priest and the atonement for sin with sprinkling blood on the mercy seat.
I believe that this passage concerning the skins is a very important part of the entire picture, because right after covering them he removed them from eden
@AlYassou3Rabbi you mix 2 issues finish one first. modesty is a covering of sin?where did you get that anywhere in the scripture.modesty as a covering for passions yes sin no.
@rabbichaimmoshe You seem to forget the earlier verse. Adam and eve had already covered their modesty by sewing together fig leaves. That shame was covered.
I am telling you that the bible suggests that all things were in place in the book of Genesis.
Genesis 26:5Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.
Sacrifice was understood by Abel, as he offered God the fruits of his work.
Genesis4:4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof.
All of the basics of the Law are alive already in Genesis. All Moses did was provide a writing of them, and the sprinkling of blood on them to make them a covenant
Ex24:8And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you
@rabbichaimmoshe No Rabbi, it is you who rests more on the oral tradition of Judaism and not on the bible. Is the Word of God even your final authority
The entire conversation has been on the penalty of sin committed by Adam and how the blood was used both to cover it and to create a new covenant.
I know the bible very well Rabbi. I have read it many times. That sad thing is, you would not be able to keep up with a bible based discussion.
You would have to continuously go to extra biblical writings to support your arguments, where I would sustain my completely within the scriptures.
The Mishnah and Talmud are not biblical writings, they are the writings of fallible men. What next, are you going to make the qu'ran your authority also
What is your final authority Rabbi, the bible, or oral tradition?
@AlYassou3Rabbi no a figleaf doesn't last. you jump from place to place and frankly your knowledge of the scriptures is superficial. you accept certain conclusions without critical discernment.i am playing with you.
You certainly don't know anything about the care of an intact penis. I am a mother of intact boys and intact girls and both types of genitals are very easy to look after but I'll tell you, a boy is much easier to care for than a girl.....You wash a baby penis like a finger and when the boy is older you teach him to retract rinse replace. It's wrong to cut babies."
TWO years the Rabbi has been blathering, he's convinced nobody of anything -except his own ignorance.
Look at all the comments that show support for child circumcision..... Oh wait a minute...... there are practically none.
Come on Rabbi, use your education, your logic, your rational mind to convince these skeptics and naysayers...
If Judaism has a cornerstone in circumcision, Judaism is a dying religion. Being a people defined primarily by "sexual trauma" and" the holocaust" is to have nothing positive going for you.
I respect the Jewish religion and I respect the Jewish people. I can never respect or agree with the circumcision of 8 day old boys. It's just plain wrong.
This important decision has to be left to the man the bay becomes. If it is important to him as an adult he can have it done and then it means something to him.
G-d did not mandate circumcision. In the original version of the Torah, the book of J, circumcision is not even mentioned. Fallible men devised circumcision as a way to curb masturbation. Even Rabbi Maimonides acknowledged this fact.
There are countless cases of infants dying from circumcision, sustaining injuries far worse than the circumcision itself, loss of penis, gastric rupture, infection following infant circumcision so bad that gangrene set in and most of the skin from navel to knees had to be removed to prevent total necrosis.
These are not anecdotal stories, they are published with photos in medical journal available to anyone who can bear to look, all entirely preventable had genital integrity been respected.
IF SUCH CASES EXIST THEY DON'T EXIST WITHIN jEWISH MOHELS THAT ARE KNOWN TO BE EXPERT . I HAVE BEEN TO HUNDREDS OF CIRCUMCISIONS WITH NO PROBLEMS AT ALL. pROFESSOR mORRIS BRINGS
ACTUAL STUDIES NOT ANECDOTAL WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT BE TRUE WHERE THERE WERE DOCUMENTED NO DEATHS IN OVER 100.000 CIRCUMCIZES BABIES,
WHILE THERE WERE INSTANCES OF DEATH IN THE UNCIRCUMCIZED BABIES.
AS I INDICATE THESE SO CALLED FACTS ARE NOT KNOWN IN THEIR ENTIRETY AS THE CASE WITH rABBI fISCHER NEVER WENT FURTHER.
Many cases of botched circumcision and related deaths exist and have been duly documented. As long as long as children are being exposed to needless and harmful surgery on their sexual organs there will be accidents. All surgery carries risk. Only the most stubborn and ignorant of people will continue to support genital mutilation of children while pretending that such accidents are acceptable.
amazing-i have never heard about all of these many gases.i challenge you to give a documented accounting. you probably have third world mutilations which has nothing to
do with certified mohels=circumcisors.
i suggest you go on to wikipedia and see the studies of Professor Shoen and on the web site of Professor Morris who indicate just how rare complications are.
besides the hygienic benefit we do so because G-D said so. A commandment of the Torah is only beneficial as proven by DrMorris
Interestingly the 2 "doctors" you choose are notorious. Aside from being an unabashed racist who advocates cutting children children's genitals for "societal class distinction" because he saw "higher circumcision rates among whites and the better educated" Morris appears to be a circumfetishist, someone who gets off sexually on the sexual mutilation of children.
so here we go that an expert citing a study of hundreds of thousands of children is a sexual fiend?
do you have evidence of that ? i could say that you are ignorant of the Torah therefore you are a sexual pervert-it makes the same sense. i don't know you and i assume you are sincere. give morris the same assumption even if you don't like his conclusion.your comment is filled with hyperbole and inflamatory language. there are more doctors who do harm than mohels percentage wise.
Splitting hairs about who does more genital mutilation harm, doctors or mohels is counterproductive. All circumcision is (to varying degrees) harmful. Children whose genital integrity is respected are not put at any such risk. There is a 0% complication rate for those children who are left genitally intact, whole, natural.
Most truthfully, any adult who cuts the genitals of an infant or child is committing an act of aggravated sexual assault.
according to the information i have gathered over the years, those who are uncircumcized have a much larger incidence of penile cancer and othe penile infections. also the who announced several years ago that circumcision helps reduce aids infection by a factor of 2/3. in other words only 35% as many infections occur as through uncircumcized males. this is huge by itself.
i did not mean to put you down but you accuse
those who disagree with you as perverted. i believe you accuse what you have
Edgar Schoen has spent his life trying to convince people that even though each of the medical claims he makes to attempt to sell circumcision don't amount to much, adding all these excuses together might present compelling reason to sexually wound children.
Thankfully crackpots like Morris and Schoen are outnumbered by real doctors who respect the hippocratic oath.
i don't know either but by your ranting i know alot about you.you are a self convinced
pseudo-intellectual that likes to put others who disagree with you down. if you are so sure of your facts give me the report published in a new england journal of medicine that has had peer review.i bet that you don't.
furthermore i have been to countless circumcision and have never witnessed the kinds of things you mention. occasionally there are small complications and this spans
In my comments have not put you down at all, though anyone who supports sexually wounding children is an easy target. What I am criticizing is the poisonous pedagogy of genital mutilation.
One of the aspects of this abuse is those who are harmed by circumcision, too much skin removed, skin bridges and tags, bad pitting to the glans, etc, often don't realize the degraded condition if their penis is a result of circumcision.
There was a decrease in masturbatory pleasure and sexual enjoyment after circumcision, indicating that adult circumcision adversely affects sexual function in many men, possibly because of complications of the surgery and a loss of nerve endings.
there have been numerous studies with thousands of individuals that conclude that there is no measurable way of proving either
circumcized or uncircumcized are more sensitive to sexual stimulli. the report you quote has at least 5 repots contradicting it. in fact in many ways the circumcized person responds better.
conclusion
the conclusion you quote comes from someone with an agenda against circumcision
The conclusion quoted is from the prestigious British Journal of Urology. If BJU has an "agenda against circumcision" good! They should. No pediatric society in the world supports it!
Removing healthy, erogenous tissue from a child, wounding his still-developing sexual organ negatively and permanently altering his sexual perception constitutes an aggravated sexual assault.
Rational people can understand this. Those who have been conditioned since infancy to follow religious rules cannot.
if they were so rational then they would have endorsed the conclusion of the who that
circumcision helps in preventing aids.
the same literature also shows an overwhelming decrease of penile cancer.
there are also significant studies indicating that the female partner is less apt to get cerviucal cancer.all the studies indicate less infections and sexually transmitted diseases.the arguments against seems spurious
For 140 years doctors have been trying to apply circumcision to whatever the current medical fear of the day was. Thus it has been touted as a cure or prevention for a wide range of highly unlikely ailments from alcoholism, epilepsy to cancer and now AIDS. These attempted links have all been discredited but they linger in the minds of those who are looking for justification for which there is none, mutilating children's genitals.
If an adult wishes to believe the specious medical claims fine, that's their business, the surgery is between informed (hopefully) consenting adults. Cutting a child's genitals is a brutal sexual violation and disrespectful of that child's right to decide for himself.
Amitai Moshe, age 8 days, went into cardiac arrest after a ritual circumcision at Golder's Green Synagogue, London. He was taken from the synagogue directly to hospital and died eight days later.
that is an anecdotal story with no evidence that the cardiac arrest was even caused by the circumcision.a child who is healthy does not go into cardiac arrest from that small wound.this is a lie or else there were other factors. professor morris indicates studies of hundreds of thousands of infants and the uncircumcized died more often than the circumcized!
Wounding children's genitals has no health "benefits." If one is going to grasp at junk science to attempt to justify this shameful practice one must also consider the death and disfigurement from careless and cruel circumcisers.
Rabbi Yitzhok Fischer of NY performed circumcision followed by oral/genital metzizah bi peh and passed the herpes virus onto twin boys, infecting both, and killing one.
as i said you only want to believe what you have prejudged. the facts don't matter. the social engineers said that the benefits of circumcision can be duplicated by scrubbing-i saw their reports in print. they acknowledged that there is evidence of hygienic benefit.
the story of the Rabbi is a fabrication.
in all the history of circumcision the complications are rare as professor Morris' documentation shows.
the problem is that you think that you are wiser than G-D who gave us the command.
Rabbi Yitzchok Fischer, the mohel who killed the one boy with oral genital contact, sucking the circumcision wound and infected two others with herpes is well documented in news articles throughout 2006 readily available to anyone who wishes to view them. There was much controversy and discussion about this with NY state authorities becoming involved.
there was a scandal which died down. i believe that the 2 infants had infections prior to the circumcisions and that no connections to Rabbi Fischer was really made. had there been the health department would not have dropped its ban.
incidentally the scientific evidence is clear that there are hygienic benefits and this is not bogus science. on the contrary the aap proclamation was unduly influenced by an anti-circumcision lobby as the evidence for the procedure is conclusive.
also in my lifetime there is such an allegation-which was unproven. however, there have been many doctors who have abused and caused the deaths of many patients that have been documented. according to your warped mind we should never see a doctor because of the sins of the few!
first of all i explained the religious attitude and Abraham was 99 at the time. so your comment has the odor of your first burp!
secondly it has been proven that men who have circumcision done are less apt to have cancer there.
the social architects of liberal mush say that if a child would scrub his penis a few times a week this would offset the advatage of circumcision. let me get this straight-you have to teach a toddler to shower and scrub his penis!i am sure they do that in africa!
Cancer of the penis is one of the rarest forms of cancer approximately 1 in 100,000 men will get it. Preemptively amputating part of the penis to "prevent" penile cancer is irrational.
Anyone who thinks a toddler needs to be taught to "scrub" their genitals has a very distorted view of what is needed for hygiene, no special care is needed.
this is only one of the benefits. certain sexually transmitted diseases i recall are less transmitted as well.the part of the penis is only skin not an integral part of the member.
the social engineers argue that scrubbing would accomplish the same, which is something insane,
as you realize the hygienic practices of some parts of society..
There are no benefits to slicing off the most sexually nerve laden part of the penis. Once again there is no part of the human genitals, male or female that require "scrubbing."
i haven't seen the studies in a while but there were observed benefits that are hygienic. the only way to get as clean a penis would be to scrub it which was clearly the opinion of the social engineers.
the fact is that Jewish law forbids any kind of wounding of anyone contradicts this piece of drivel you promote.
You certainly don't know anything about the care of an intact penis. I am a mother of intact boys and intact girls and both types of genitals are very easy to look after but I'll tell you, a boy is much easier to care for than a girl. You mentioned having children and grandchildren. Are any of these girls? Were the genitals of these little girls scrubbed. I hope not. You wash a baby penis like a finger and when the boy is older you teach him to retract rinse replace. It's wrong to cut babies.
If boys can learn to blow their nose, brush their teeth, and wipe their butts after using the toilet, they can learn to pull back their foreskin and wash. (Incidentally, the foreskin is normally attached to the Glans and may not separate until puberty. When this is the case, it should be left alone, not forcibly retracted).
Penile cancer only occurs in the most slovenly of elderly men. Simple basic hygiene prevents it. Circumcision of healthy erogenous tissue from infants who cannot consent is perhaps one of the most bizarre justifications for sexual wounding. Circumcision does not prevent penile cancer. One can find a photo example on the internet of a circumcised penis with penile cancer.
Thank you for the referral to your psychiatrist but I shall keep a sane mind and continue respecting the basic human right of all human children to genital integrity.
and it is clear that circumcision reduces the incidences of penile and cervical cancer as well as numerous sexually transmitted diseases including the aids virus.
circumcision reduces other penile infections in children . it is clear that the benefits to the body far outweigh the risks and your position is that of people who are commited to a worldview disdaining the belief in a supreme being. Look up the facts they are clearly as i said.
the wound heals quickly and has been proven effective in the health of the male insofar as avoiding certain diseases. see my comment to your wise cohort for the rest.
circumcision works!social engineering fouls things up.
you aren't rational but biased. you probably went to a socialist promoting college and never thought independently in your life!
Maybe you could discern the following passage for me and in your own words tell me what the great prophet is saying
Isaiah 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little
AlYassou3Rabbi 1 month ago
This blood covering is a theme that is revisited over and over by God when making a covenant with man.
After Adam sinned against God, he was removed from the Garden. The plan of God changed for the adamic race and he made a new covenant and covered Adam with it. The skins.
If this idea of shed blood, something dying for sin, something being sacrificed or burned to God to cover or atone for those sins wasnt instituted at the Garden, why would Abel be memorializing in Gen 4?
AlYassou3Rabbi 1 month ago
@AlYassou3Rabbi it was not a covenant with abel-it was a presence resting upon him
because his offering was from the best not because of blood.
the concept exists but is distoted by you and the people you think you serve and worship.christianity in your form is idolatry.
rabbichaimmoshe 1 month ago
@rabbichaimmoshe We can discuss Jewish views on the Torah, or we can debate Christianity vs Judaism.
Which do you prefer because I am very well versed on debating Christianity?
AlYassou3Rabbi 1 month ago
@IamaZionistGoy Yes, but unfortunately for your point of view, one can not skin an animal without shedding blood.
The sin in which Adam committed against God was punishable by death.
Genesis 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die
Rather this transgression in your eyes required "korban khatat" or "korban asham" it required sacrifice none the less
Lev 17:11
AlYassou3Rabbi 1 month ago
I was hoping to hear you speak of the blood covenant after I read a couple of the comments here.
Every time God made a covenant with the Jewish nation, he sealed that covenant with the shedding of blood. Wen he made his covenant with Adam and Eve and covered their sin, he covered them with animal skins. There could be no animal skins without first that shedding of blood.
AlYassou3Rabbi 1 month ago
@AlYassou3Rabbi sorry pal it doesn't say that in my Bible so you made that up .nowhere does it say what kind of skin or that animals were killed,nor is there a blood covenant.you are bloody wrong about your ASSumptions son.
rabbichaimmoshe 1 month ago
@rabbichaimmoshe I will quote mine then.
Genesis 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them
How do you suppose they got the skins of animals without something dying?
Sin is covered with blood (Leviticus 16).
.Psalm 32:1 Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered
God covered the sin of Adam with those skins. If you recall, Adam had already covered himself with fig leaves (Genesis 3:7)
AlYassou3Rabbi 1 month ago
@AlYassou3Rabbi whose skin?perhaps he extended their own,perhaps he made a skin for them-there is no proof that a sacrifice was part of this
rabbichaimmoshe 1 month ago
@rabbichaimmoshe Yeah sure, he gave them a second skin. Sure, both of them
Can you post a single verse to support that? NO !!!
I was thinking the same thing with your summation that circumcision was in effect before Abraham, when it was God who gave the law of circumcision to Abram in Genesis 17.
You would be in err there Rabbi.
AlYassou3Rabbi 1 month ago
@AlYassou3Rabbi there is a midrash that it was an extension of their own nails. furthrmore why could there not be a skin made by G-D without a death of an animal?
how about shedding ? how about wool? how about creating a fur? you are speaking
less than sense.
rabbichaimmoshe 1 month ago
@rabbichaimmoshe These are all possibilities of course, and there is no definitive answer, but.......
Genesis is the book of beginnings, and this idea of a covering for sin is important in the Jewish teachings. Lets not forget that the High Priest and the atonement for sin with sprinkling blood on the mercy seat.
I believe that this passage concerning the skins is a very important part of the entire picture, because right after covering them he removed them from eden
AlYassou3Rabbi 1 month ago
@AlYassou3Rabbi Adams expulsion from the garden marks the very first case of "Herem" presented in the bible.
Why wouldnt the skins provided by God mark the very first case of blood atonement for sin in the bible?
AlYassou3Rabbi 1 month ago
@AlYassou3Rabbi you mix 2 issues finish one first. modesty is a covering of sin?where did you get that anywhere in the scripture.modesty as a covering for passions yes sin no.
rabbichaimmoshe 1 month ago
@rabbichaimmoshe You seem to forget the earlier verse. Adam and eve had already covered their modesty by sewing together fig leaves. That shame was covered.
I am telling you that the bible suggests that all things were in place in the book of Genesis.
Genesis 26:5Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.
AlYassou3Rabbi 1 month ago
Sacrifice was understood by Abel, as he offered God the fruits of his work.
Genesis4:4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof.
All of the basics of the Law are alive already in Genesis. All Moses did was provide a writing of them, and the sprinkling of blood on them to make them a covenant
Ex24:8And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you
AlYassou3Rabbi 1 month ago
@AlYassou3Rabbi you jump from issue to issue. the fig leafs were temporary the skins more permanent and you don't know any scripture.
there is nothing to discuss with you until you ask respectfully and stick to one topic .
your jumping is what christians do when they are cornered they change the subject hoping something might stick.
rabbichaimmoshe 1 month ago
@rabbichaimmoshe No Rabbi, it is you who rests more on the oral tradition of Judaism and not on the bible. Is the Word of God even your final authority
The entire conversation has been on the penalty of sin committed by Adam and how the blood was used both to cover it and to create a new covenant.
I know the bible very well Rabbi. I have read it many times. That sad thing is, you would not be able to keep up with a bible based discussion.
CONT
AlYassou3Rabbi 1 month ago
@rabbichaimmoshe CONT
You would have to continuously go to extra biblical writings to support your arguments, where I would sustain my completely within the scriptures.
The Mishnah and Talmud are not biblical writings, they are the writings of fallible men. What next, are you going to make the qu'ran your authority also
What is your final authority Rabbi, the bible, or oral tradition?
AlYassou3Rabbi 1 month ago
@AlYassou3Rabbi no a figleaf doesn't last. you jump from place to place and frankly your knowledge of the scriptures is superficial. you accept certain conclusions without critical discernment.i am playing with you.
rabbichaimmoshe 1 month ago
You certainly don't know anything about the care of an intact penis. I am a mother of intact boys and intact girls and both types of genitals are very easy to look after but I'll tell you, a boy is much easier to care for than a girl.....You wash a baby penis like a finger and when the boy is older you teach him to retract rinse replace. It's wrong to cut babies."
TWO years the Rabbi has been blathering, he's convinced nobody of anything -except his own ignorance.
Good post from a MOM.
TinWoodsmanXXX 7 months ago
@TinWoodsmanXXX yep in the third world they really will clean it-jerk!
rabbichaimmoshe 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rabbichaimmoshe "@TinWoodsmanXXX yep in the third world they really will clean it-jerk!
rabbichaimmoshe 6 minutes ago "
Smegma is harmless. Women make lots of it and men make it too. It is protective and moisturizing. You are "willfully ignorant".
Even someone you probably think of as a "silly ignorant woman" know more than you do.
Go ahead, call me a "jerk" - I call you a "rabbi" in exchange.
TinWoodsmanXXX 7 months ago
WWWWWOOOOWWWWW!
Look at all the comments that show support for child circumcision..... Oh wait a minute...... there are practically none.
Come on Rabbi, use your education, your logic, your rational mind to convince these skeptics and naysayers...
If Judaism has a cornerstone in circumcision, Judaism is a dying religion. Being a people defined primarily by "sexual trauma" and" the holocaust" is to have nothing positive going for you.
Judaism should be a "living thing". It ain't.
TinWoodsmanXXX 7 months ago
I respect the Jewish religion and I respect the Jewish people. I can never respect or agree with the circumcision of 8 day old boys. It's just plain wrong.
This important decision has to be left to the man the bay becomes. If it is important to him as an adult he can have it done and then it means something to him.
2live42day 3 years ago 21
if G-d said to do this at 8 days then this is what we have to do. if G-D didn't say it we shouldn't do it at all.
rabbichaimmoshe 3 years ago
G-d did not mandate circumcision. In the original version of the Torah, the book of J, circumcision is not even mentioned. Fallible men devised circumcision as a way to curb masturbation. Even Rabbi Maimonides acknowledged this fact.
from JAC
2live42day 3 years ago 13
I think Abraham waited 99 years because it took him that long to work up the nerve.
2live42day 3 years ago 13
Actually it's okay for men to have it done to themselves for religious and any other reason. It's wrong to do it to children.
2live42day 3 years ago 12
There are countless cases of infants dying from circumcision, sustaining injuries far worse than the circumcision itself, loss of penis, gastric rupture, infection following infant circumcision so bad that gangrene set in and most of the skin from navel to knees had to be removed to prevent total necrosis.
These are not anecdotal stories, they are published with photos in medical journal available to anyone who can bear to look, all entirely preventable had genital integrity been respected.
Bonobo3D 3 years ago 5
IF SUCH CASES EXIST THEY DON'T EXIST WITHIN jEWISH MOHELS THAT ARE KNOWN TO BE EXPERT . I HAVE BEEN TO HUNDREDS OF CIRCUMCISIONS WITH NO PROBLEMS AT ALL. pROFESSOR mORRIS BRINGS
ACTUAL STUDIES NOT ANECDOTAL WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT BE TRUE WHERE THERE WERE DOCUMENTED NO DEATHS IN OVER 100.000 CIRCUMCIZES BABIES,
WHILE THERE WERE INSTANCES OF DEATH IN THE UNCIRCUMCIZED BABIES.
AS I INDICATE THESE SO CALLED FACTS ARE NOT KNOWN IN THEIR ENTIRETY AS THE CASE WITH rABBI fISCHER NEVER WENT FURTHER.
rabbichaimmoshe 3 years ago
Many cases of botched circumcision and related deaths exist and have been duly documented. As long as long as children are being exposed to needless and harmful surgery on their sexual organs there will be accidents. All surgery carries risk. Only the most stubborn and ignorant of people will continue to support genital mutilation of children while pretending that such accidents are acceptable.
Bonobo3D 3 years ago 7
amazing-i have never heard about all of these many gases.i challenge you to give a documented accounting. you probably have third world mutilations which has nothing to
do with certified mohels=circumcisors.
i suggest you go on to wikipedia and see the studies of Professor Shoen and on the web site of Professor Morris who indicate just how rare complications are.
besides the hygienic benefit we do so because G-D said so. A commandment of the Torah is only beneficial as proven by DrMorris
rabbichaimmoshe 3 years ago
Interestingly the 2 "doctors" you choose are notorious. Aside from being an unabashed racist who advocates cutting children children's genitals for "societal class distinction" because he saw "higher circumcision rates among whites and the better educated" Morris appears to be a circumfetishist, someone who gets off sexually on the sexual mutilation of children.
Bonobo3D 3 years ago 6
so here we go that an expert citing a study of hundreds of thousands of children is a sexual fiend?
do you have evidence of that ? i could say that you are ignorant of the Torah therefore you are a sexual pervert-it makes the same sense. i don't know you and i assume you are sincere. give morris the same assumption even if you don't like his conclusion.your comment is filled with hyperbole and inflamatory language. there are more doctors who do harm than mohels percentage wise.
rabbichaimmoshe 3 years ago
Splitting hairs about who does more genital mutilation harm, doctors or mohels is counterproductive. All circumcision is (to varying degrees) harmful. Children whose genital integrity is respected are not put at any such risk. There is a 0% complication rate for those children who are left genitally intact, whole, natural.
Most truthfully, any adult who cuts the genitals of an infant or child is committing an act of aggravated sexual assault.
Bonobo3D 3 years ago 6
according to the information i have gathered over the years, those who are uncircumcized have a much larger incidence of penile cancer and othe penile infections. also the who announced several years ago that circumcision helps reduce aids infection by a factor of 2/3. in other words only 35% as many infections occur as through uncircumcized males. this is huge by itself.
i did not mean to put you down but you accuse
those who disagree with you as perverted. i believe you accuse what you have
rabbichaimmoshe 3 years ago
Edgar Schoen has spent his life trying to convince people that even though each of the medical claims he makes to attempt to sell circumcision don't amount to much, adding all these excuses together might present compelling reason to sexually wound children.
Thankfully crackpots like Morris and Schoen are outnumbered by real doctors who respect the hippocratic oath.
Bonobo3D 3 years ago 6
i don't know either but by your ranting i know alot about you.you are a self convinced
pseudo-intellectual that likes to put others who disagree with you down. if you are so sure of your facts give me the report published in a new england journal of medicine that has had peer review.i bet that you don't.
furthermore i have been to countless circumcision and have never witnessed the kinds of things you mention. occasionally there are small complications and this spans
almost 4 public decades.
rabbichaimmoshe 3 years ago
In my comments have not put you down at all, though anyone who supports sexually wounding children is an easy target. What I am criticizing is the poisonous pedagogy of genital mutilation.
One of the aspects of this abuse is those who are harmed by circumcision, too much skin removed, skin bridges and tags, bad pitting to the glans, etc, often don't realize the degraded condition if their penis is a result of circumcision.
Bonobo3D 3 years ago 6
again sir-please present me with a documented article to a reputable journal of medicine such as the new england journal.
otherwise it is you who are living in delusions. this is the mantra of the secular humanist who wants no authority other than himself for everyone...
be well
chaim
rabbichaimmoshe 3 years ago
The effect of male circumcision on sexuality
BJU International
Volume 99 Issue 3, Pages 619 - 622
28 Nov 2006
CONCLUSION
There was a decrease in masturbatory pleasure and sexual enjoyment after circumcision, indicating that adult circumcision adversely affects sexual function in many men, possibly because of complications of the surgery and a loss of nerve endings.
Bonobo3D 3 years ago 9
there have been numerous studies with thousands of individuals that conclude that there is no measurable way of proving either
circumcized or uncircumcized are more sensitive to sexual stimulli. the report you quote has at least 5 repots contradicting it. in fact in many ways the circumcized person responds better.
conclusion
the conclusion you quote comes from someone with an agenda against circumcision
rabbichaimmoshe 3 years ago
The conclusion quoted is from the prestigious British Journal of Urology. If BJU has an "agenda against circumcision" good! They should. No pediatric society in the world supports it!
Removing healthy, erogenous tissue from a child, wounding his still-developing sexual organ negatively and permanently altering his sexual perception constitutes an aggravated sexual assault.
Rational people can understand this. Those who have been conditioned since infancy to follow religious rules cannot.
Bonobo3D 3 years ago 8
if they were so rational then they would have endorsed the conclusion of the who that
circumcision helps in preventing aids.
the same literature also shows an overwhelming decrease of penile cancer.
there are also significant studies indicating that the female partner is less apt to get cerviucal cancer.all the studies indicate less infections and sexually transmitted diseases.the arguments against seems spurious
as the results were not disputed .
rabbichaimmoshe 3 years ago
For 140 years doctors have been trying to apply circumcision to whatever the current medical fear of the day was. Thus it has been touted as a cure or prevention for a wide range of highly unlikely ailments from alcoholism, epilepsy to cancer and now AIDS. These attempted links have all been discredited but they linger in the minds of those who are looking for justification for which there is none, mutilating children's genitals.
Bonobo3D 3 years ago 9
If an adult wishes to believe the specious medical claims fine, that's their business, the surgery is between informed (hopefully) consenting adults. Cutting a child's genitals is a brutal sexual violation and disrespectful of that child's right to decide for himself.
Bonobo3D 3 years ago 9
Amitai Moshe, age 8 days, went into cardiac arrest after a ritual circumcision at Golder's Green Synagogue, London. He was taken from the synagogue directly to hospital and died eight days later.
RoseFink 3 years ago 12
that is an anecdotal story with no evidence that the cardiac arrest was even caused by the circumcision.a child who is healthy does not go into cardiac arrest from that small wound.this is a lie or else there were other factors. professor morris indicates studies of hundreds of thousands of infants and the uncircumcized died more often than the circumcized!
rabbichaimmoshe 3 years ago
Wounding children's genitals has no health "benefits." If one is going to grasp at junk science to attempt to justify this shameful practice one must also consider the death and disfigurement from careless and cruel circumcisers.
Rabbi Yitzhok Fischer of NY performed circumcision followed by oral/genital metzizah bi peh and passed the herpes virus onto twin boys, infecting both, and killing one.
EnoFrisk 3 years ago 11
as i said you only want to believe what you have prejudged. the facts don't matter. the social engineers said that the benefits of circumcision can be duplicated by scrubbing-i saw their reports in print. they acknowledged that there is evidence of hygienic benefit.
the story of the Rabbi is a fabrication.
in all the history of circumcision the complications are rare as professor Morris' documentation shows.
the problem is that you think that you are wiser than G-D who gave us the command.
rabbichaimmoshe 3 years ago
Rabbi Yitzchok Fischer, the mohel who killed the one boy with oral genital contact, sucking the circumcision wound and infected two others with herpes is well documented in news articles throughout 2006 readily available to anyone who wishes to view them. There was much controversy and discussion about this with NY state authorities becoming involved.
EnoFrisk 3 years ago 11
there was a scandal which died down. i believe that the 2 infants had infections prior to the circumcisions and that no connections to Rabbi Fischer was really made. had there been the health department would not have dropped its ban.
incidentally the scientific evidence is clear that there are hygienic benefits and this is not bogus science. on the contrary the aap proclamation was unduly influenced by an anti-circumcision lobby as the evidence for the procedure is conclusive.
rabbichaimmoshe 3 years ago
also in my lifetime there is such an allegation-which was unproven. however, there have been many doctors who have abused and caused the deaths of many patients that have been documented. according to your warped mind we should never see a doctor because of the sins of the few!
rabbichaimmoshe 3 years ago
Anyone who seeks justification for genital mutilation of children is delusional.
Read Leonard Glick's Marked in Your Flesh: Circumcision From Ancient Judea to Modern America if you wish to become informed.
EnoFrisk 3 years ago 15
first of all i explained the religious attitude and Abraham was 99 at the time. so your comment has the odor of your first burp!
secondly it has been proven that men who have circumcision done are less apt to have cancer there.
the social architects of liberal mush say that if a child would scrub his penis a few times a week this would offset the advatage of circumcision. let me get this straight-you have to teach a toddler to shower and scrub his penis!i am sure they do that in africa!
rabbichaimmoshe 3 years ago
Cancer of the penis is one of the rarest forms of cancer approximately 1 in 100,000 men will get it. Preemptively amputating part of the penis to "prevent" penile cancer is irrational.
Anyone who thinks a toddler needs to be taught to "scrub" their genitals has a very distorted view of what is needed for hygiene, no special care is needed.
EnoFrisk 3 years ago 13
this is only one of the benefits. certain sexually transmitted diseases i recall are less transmitted as well.the part of the penis is only skin not an integral part of the member.
the social engineers argue that scrubbing would accomplish the same, which is something insane,
as you realize the hygienic practices of some parts of society..
rabbichaimmoshe 3 years ago
There are no benefits to slicing off the most sexually nerve laden part of the penis. Once again there is no part of the human genitals, male or female that require "scrubbing."
EnoFrisk 3 years ago 12
i haven't seen the studies in a while but there were observed benefits that are hygienic. the only way to get as clean a penis would be to scrub it which was clearly the opinion of the social engineers.
the fact is that Jewish law forbids any kind of wounding of anyone contradicts this piece of drivel you promote.
rabbichaimmoshe 3 years ago
You certainly don't know anything about the care of an intact penis. I am a mother of intact boys and intact girls and both types of genitals are very easy to look after but I'll tell you, a boy is much easier to care for than a girl. You mentioned having children and grandchildren. Are any of these girls? Were the genitals of these little girls scrubbed. I hope not. You wash a baby penis like a finger and when the boy is older you teach him to retract rinse replace. It's wrong to cut babies.
2live42day 3 years ago 13
If boys can learn to blow their nose, brush their teeth, and wipe their butts after using the toilet, they can learn to pull back their foreskin and wash. (Incidentally, the foreskin is normally attached to the Glans and may not separate until puberty. When this is the case, it should be left alone, not forcibly retracted).
From JAC
2live42day 3 years ago 17
besides,for the one in 100,000 it means everything..it only proves that the commandment is beneficial physically as well.
rabbichaimmoshe 3 years ago
Penile cancer only occurs in the most slovenly of elderly men. Simple basic hygiene prevents it. Circumcision of healthy erogenous tissue from infants who cannot consent is perhaps one of the most bizarre justifications for sexual wounding. Circumcision does not prevent penile cancer. One can find a photo example on the internet of a circumcised penis with penile cancer.
EnoFrisk 3 years ago 11
clearly then the nonreligious doctors who told ne this were in error!amazing!
rabbichaimmoshe 3 years ago
i would suggest to you to contact Dr. Abraham Twersky an internationally famous and Chassidic psychiatrist and present your biased ideas with him.
as i said i saw the articles come out years ago and i have had my children and grandkids circumcized and they are all well adjusted.
rabbichaimmoshe 3 years ago
Thank you for the referral to your psychiatrist but I shall keep a sane mind and continue respecting the basic human right of all human children to genital integrity.
EnoFrisk 3 years ago 12
i also looked up the benefits of circumcision
and it is clear that circumcision reduces the incidences of penile and cervical cancer as well as numerous sexually transmitted diseases including the aids virus.
circumcision reduces other penile infections in children . it is clear that the benefits to the body far outweigh the risks and your position is that of people who are commited to a worldview disdaining the belief in a supreme being. Look up the facts they are clearly as i said.
rabbichaimmoshe 3 years ago
Religious superstition lives in the minds of the dutiful.
Rational humans can easily understand the importance of protecting a child from surgical wounding.
RoseFink 3 years ago 20
the wound heals quickly and has been proven effective in the health of the male insofar as avoiding certain diseases. see my comment to your wise cohort for the rest.
circumcision works!social engineering fouls things up.
you aren't rational but biased. you probably went to a socialist promoting college and never thought independently in your life!
at least that is what your comment shows.
be well!
rabbichaimmoshe 3 years ago
There is no need to wound a baby's penis. Yes infants do heal quickly from from wounds, but why wound them in the first place.
The reason is now being understood. Those who are sexually wounded as infants and children are psychologically impelled to wound others.
EnoFrisk 3 years ago 15
first it really benefits them and yes i have seen the articles where the social engineers say they should scrub it!
regarding your socxial psychological gobbledygook-it comes from sick minds who impute sick intent upon others.
freud was sick and he imputed his sickness on everyone else.
this is not mutilation. there is no long term wound but there is long term benefit, even physically.
this is besides the Holy aspect of this bond of the Jew with his Creator.
rabbichaimmoshe 3 years ago
The wound lasts for a lifetime. The delusion lasts for generations.
EnoFrisk 3 years ago 16
What a lot of delusional bullshit.
EnoFrisk 3 years ago 16
what is delusional and what is fertilizer?
you like making a grating comment,now back it up by proving your point big guy!
rabbichaimmoshe 3 years ago