It's not done for sexual reasons,it was recommended in the Talmud. I think we need to be careful of conclusions about large groups of people ...
But I definitely agree it's totally wrong for multiple reasons..! It is normally not done though, by Hasidic Jews (one of the 2 strictest Haredi groups) do still do it.
More info : distressing details...😢
Metzitzah B'Peh (oral suction)
edit
The traditional method of performing metzitzah b'peh (Hebrew: מְצִיצָה בְּפֶה, abbreviated as MBP[76])—or oral suction[77][78]—has become controversial. The process has the mohel place his mouth directly on the infant's genital wound to suck blood away from the cut. Many circumcision ceremonies no longer use metzitzah b'peh,[79] but Haredi Jews continue to perform it.[74][75][67] The practice poses a risk of spreading herpes to the infant.[80][81][82][83] Proponents maintain that there is no conclusive evidence that links herpes to Metzitza,[84] and that attempts to limit this practice infringe on religious freedom.[85][86][87]
The practice has become a controversy in both secular and Jewish medical ethics. The ritual of metzitzah is found in Mishnah Shabbat 19:2, which lists it as one of the four steps involved in the circumcision rite. Rabbi Moses Sofer, also known as the Chatam Sofer (1762–1839), observed that the Talmud states that the rationale for this part of the ritual was hygienic—i.e., to protect the health of the child. As such, the Chatam Sofer issued a ruling to perform metzitzah with a sponge instead of oral suction in order to safeguard the child from potential risks. He also cited a passage in Nedarim 32a as a warrant for the position that metzitzah b’peh was not an obligatory part of the circumcision ceremony.[88][89] It relates the story that a mohel (who was suspected of transmitting herpes via metzizah to infants) was checked several times and never found to have signs of the disease and that a ban was requested because of the "possibility of future infections".[90] Moshe Schick (1807–1879), a student of Moses Sofer, states in his book of Responsa, She’eilos u’teshuvos Maharam Schick (Orach Chaim 152,) that Moses Sofer gave the ruling in that specific instance only because the mohel refused to step down and had secular government connections that prevented his removal in favor of another mohel, and the Heter may not be applied elsewhere. He also states (Yoreh Deah 244) that the practice is possibly a Sinaitic tradition, i.e., Halacha l'Moshe m'Sinai. Other sources contradict this claim, with copies of Moses Sofer's responsa making no mention of the legal case or of his ruling applying in only one situation. Rather, that responsa makes quite clear that "metzizah" was a health measure and should never be employed where there is a health risk to the infant.[91]
Chaim Hezekiah Medini, after corresponding with the greatest Jewish sages of the generation, concluded the practice to be Halacha l'Moshe m'Sinai and elaborates on what prompted Moses Sofer to give the above ruling.[92] He tells the story that a student of Moses Sofer, Lazar Horowitz, Chief Rabbi of Vienna at the time and author of the responsa Yad Elazer, needed the ruling because of a governmental attempt to ban circumcision completely if it included metztitzah b'peh. He therefore asked Sofer to give him permission to do brit milah without metzitzah b'peh. When he presented the defense in secular court, his testimony was erroneously recorded to mean that Sofer stated it as a general ruling.[93] The Rabbinical Council of America (RCA), which claims to be the largest American organization of Orthodox rabbis, published an article by mohel Yehudi Pesach Shields in its summer 1972 issue of Tradition magazine, calling for the abandonment of Metzitzah b'peh.[94] Since then the RCA has issued an opinion that advocates methods that do not involve contact between the mohel's mouth and the infant's genitals, such as the use of a sterile syringe, thereby eliminating the risk of infection. According to the first Ashkenazic Chief Rabbi of the State of Israel, metzitzah b'peh should not be performed, stating in a 1955 letter that "anyone who insists that metzitza must be done by mouth only, is in my opinion, mistaken and is leading others astray in a matter where there is a possibility of danger."[
damage.[80][96] When three New York City infants contracted herpes after metzizah b'peh by one mohel and one of them died, New York authorities took out a restraining order against the mohel requiring use of a sterile glass tube, or pipette.[67][97] The mohel's attorney argued that the New York Department of Health had not supplied conclusive medical evidence linking his client with the disease.[97][98] In September 2005, the city withdrew the restraining order and turned the matter over to a rabbinical court.[99] Thomas Frieden, the Health Commissioner of New York City, wrote, "There exists no reasonable doubt that 'metzitzah b'peh' can and has caused neonatal herpes infection....The Health Department recommends that infants being circumcised not undergo metzitzah b'peh."[100] In May 2006, the Department of Health for New York State issued a protocol for the performance of metzitzah b'peh.[101] Antonia Novello, Commissioner of Health for New York State, together with a board of rabbis and doctors, worked, she said, to "allow the practice of metzizah b'peh to continue while still meeting the Department of Health's responsibility to protect the public health".[102] Later in New York City in 2012 a 2-week-old baby died of herpes because of metzitzah b'peh.[103]
In three medical papers done in Israel, Canada, and the US, oral suction following circumcision was suggested as a cause in 11 cases of neonatal herpes.[80][104][105] Researchers noted that prior to 1997, neonatal herpes reports in Israel were rare, and that the late instances were correlated with the mothers carrying the virus themselves.[80] Rabbi Doctor Mordechai Halperin implicates the "better hygiene and living conditions that prevail among the younger generation", which lowered to 60% the rate of young Israeli Haredi mothers who carry the virus. He explains that an "absence of antibodies in the mothers' blood means that their newborn sons received no such antibodies through the placenta, and therefore are vulnerable to infection by HSV-1".[106]
Barriers
edit
Because of the risk of infection, some rabbinical authorities have ruled that the traditional practice of direct contact should be replaced by using a sterile tube between the wound and the mohel's mouth, so there is no direct oral contact. The Rabbinical Council of America, the largest group of Modern Orthodox rabbis, endorses this method.[107] The RCA paper states: "Rabbi Schachter even reports that Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik reports that his father, Rav Moshe Soloveitchik, would not permit a mohel to perform metzitza be’peh with direct oral contact, and that his grandfather, Rav Chaim Soloveitchik, instructed mohelim in Brisk not to do metzitza be’peh with direct oral contact. However, although Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik also generally prohibited metzitza be’peh with direct oral contact, he did not ban it by those who insisted upon it." The sefer Mitzvas Hametzitzah[108] by Rabbi Sinai Schiffer of Baden, Germany, states that he is in possession of letters from 36 major Russian (Lithuanian) rabbis that categorically prohibit Metzitzah with a sponge and require it to be done orally. Among them is Rabbi Chaim Halevi Soloveitchik of Brisk.
In September 2012, the New York Department of Health unanimously ruled that the practice of metztizah b'peh should require informed consent from the parent or guardian of the child undergoing the ritual.[109] Prior to the ruling, several hundred rabbis, including Rabbi David Niederman, the executive director of the United Jewish Organization of Williamsburg, signed a declaration stating that they would not inform parents of the potential dangers that came with metzitzah b'peh, even if informed consent became law.[110]
In a motion for preliminary injunction with intent to sue, filed against New York City Department of Health & Mental Hygiene, affidavits by Awi Federgruen,[111][112] Brenda Breuer,[113][114] and Daniel S. Berman[115][116] argued that the study on which the department passed its conclusions is flawed.[117][118][119][120]
The "informed consent" regulation was challenged in court. In January 2013 the U.S. District court ruled that the law did not specifically target religion and therefore must not pass strict scrutiny. The ruling was appealed to the Court of Appeals.[121]
On August 15, 2014, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision by the lower court, and ruled that the regulation does have to be reviewed under strict scrutiny to determine whether it infringes on Orthodox Jews' freedom of religion.[122]
On September 9, 2015, after coming to an agreement with the community the New York City Board of Health voted to repeal the informed consent regulation.[123]