Judaism discovered

U.S. Government Lays the Groundwork for Talmudic Courts

"Our" government under Presidents Reagan, Bush Sr. and Jr. and Clinton, has provided, under the euphemism of education (for example, House Joint Resolution 173 and Public Law 102-14), a groundwork for the establishment of Talmudic "courts of justice" to be administered by disciples of Shneur Zalman's Chabad successor, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson. Maimonides ruled that it is a rabbinic court — or a court appointed by rabbinic authority—that enforces obedience and passes judgment on gentiles, as well as promulgating legislation by court order for that purpose. Maimonides further decreed that any non-Jewish nation "not subject to our jurisdiction" (tahaht yadeinu) will be the target of Judaic holy war.⁷⁹⁹ These courts are to be convened allegedly under the "Noahide Laws." The U.S. presidents and Congress urged the adoption of the "Noahide" Laws as interpreted by Chabad-Lubavitch Grand Rabbi Schneerson.

Prof. Easterly of the Southern University Law Center, a Judaic legal expert, has compared this Public law 102-14 to the "first rays of dawn" which "evidence the rising of a still unseen sun." The Jewish Encyclopedia envisages a Noachide regime as a possible world order immediately preceding the universal reign of the Talmud. As noted earlier, it has to be understood that we are not dealing with the Noah of the Bible when the religion of Judaism refers to "Noachide law," but the Noachide law as understood and interpreted by the absolute system of falsification that constitutes the Talmud. Under the Talmud's counterfeit Noachide Laws, the worship of Jesus is forbidden under penalty of death, since such worship of Christ is condemned by Judaism as idolatry. Meanwhile various forms of incest are permitted under the Talmudic understanding of the Noachide code.⁸⁰⁰ Furthermore, all non-Jews would have the legal status ofger toshav (resident alien), ⁸⁰¹ even in their own land; as for example in occupied Palestine where newly arrived Khazars from Russia have an automatic right to housing and citizenship, while two million Palestinian refugees who either fled or were

667

expelled by the Israelis, are forbidden the right of return. Resident alien status has been clearly delineated in scholarly articles in leading Judaic publications. For example, Hebrew University Professor Mordechai Nisan, basing his exposition on Maimonides, stated that a non-Jew permitted to reside in a land ruled by rabinic law "must accept paying a tax and suffering the humiliation of servitude." If gentiles refuse to live a life of inferiority, then this signals their rebellion and the unavoidable necessity of Judaic warfare against their very presence. ⁸⁰² At a symposium ("Is Autonomy for Resident Aliens Feasible?") organized by Israeli Minister of Education Shulamit Aloni, then Israeli Chief Rabbi Shlomo Goren repeated the Talmudic teaching on resident aliens: that Judaism forbids "granting any national rights" to them. He ruled that such "Autonomy is tantamount to a denial of the Jewish religion." ⁸⁰³

American taxpayers' subsidy of the so-called "U.S. Holocaust Museum" in Washington, D.C., is yet another indicator of the gradual establishment of a Judaic state religion in the U.S. This "Holocaust museum" excludes any reference to holocausts perpetrated by circumcised Judaic Communists against Christians in Russia and Eastern Europe, from 1917 onward (including the Yevseksia, the "Yiddish division" of the Communist Party). The focus of the museum is almost entirely on Judaic suffering. Holocausts perpetrated by Israelis against Arabs in Lebanon and Palestine since 1948 are nowhere to be found in the exhibits of the U.S. "Holocaust Museum," which functions more like a synagogue than a repository of objective historical information. It is through the rapid emergence of this ostensibly secular but all-pervasive "Holocaustianity" — whereby the religion of Judaism is gaining enormous power and influence as mankind's supreme ethos and the creed of God's Holy People.

668

669

"Holocaust-denial" is a mortal sin, but Jesus Christ-denial is enthusiastically promoted by Google, L.A. Times and Newsweek. Google will not transmit, advertise or broadcast any book, movie or DVD that "denies" that execution Nazi gas chambers existed. On Feb. 22, 2006 Google banned a revisionist video of Charles D. Provan who stated that while homicidal gas chambers existed, it was Judaics who operated them. Google gets paid to promote the notion that Jesus never existed (see the small print at the bottom of the preceding advertisement). Now you know what is truly sacred in America: the holy execution gas chambers of Auschwitz are protected from critical scrutiny, while Jesus Christ's very existence is freely denied in paid advertising accepted by companies who will not transmit "Holocaust denial." The L.A. Times and Newsweek will not review any book, movie or DVD that doubts that Nazi execution gas chambers existed, much less give favorable publicity to such skepticism. The preceding Google advertisement was all over the web. We found it on display on the morning of March 7, 2007 at www. aldaily. com

In view of these facts, what are we to make of the supposed "clash of civilizations "/World War III scenario that certain "Christian" shills for the Zionists tell us is inevitable as "our Christian civilization confronts Islam." What "Christian civilization" is it that we have in America that promotes attacks on Christ while forbidding scrutiny of stories of homicidal gas chambers in Auschwitz? Auschwitz would seem to be "Christian" America's sacred idol, while "Christian" America permits advertisements for attacks on the very existence of Jesus Christ, the son of God. Could it be that America's "Christian civilization" is actually a euphemism for a Zionist-masonic empire that mouths rhetoric about the Bible from time to time, but is otherwise the clandestine military and economic arm of the petrified Phariseeism that seeks to rebuild the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem?

If that is the case, when Muslims attack "Christian missionaries" are they attacking them because these "missionaries" are true evangelists of the gospel of Jesus, or because the Muslims believe that these "missionaries" are actually preachers of subservience to the Israeli war machine and evangelists of the Talmudic mass murder of non-Judaics in the Middle East?

In the sense in which it has been made captive to would-be proprietors, the word, "Holocaust" is a neologism imposed in the late twentieth century almost overnight and uniformly with a speed and acquiescence that would

670

have pleased and astonished a Mao or a Stalin. The employment and enforcement of "Holocaust-denial" as an ethical breach, or even a criminal act, is a certain "Sign of the Rabbinic Times" and the overthrow of that process of unfettered discovery, of instauration, about which Francis Bacon opined, "Being convinced that the human intellect makes its own difficulties, not using the true helps which are at man's disposal soberly and judiciously; whence follows manifold ignorance of things, and by reason of that ignorance mischiefs innumerable; he thought all trial should be made, whether that commerce between the mind of man and the nature of things, which is more precious than anything on earth..."

Under the laws and ethics of "Holocaust denial," Bacon's "trial" can no longer be made upon the history of World War II. As the Bush administration ruled in tandem with the United Nations in January of 2007, "The United States condemns without reservation any denial of the Holocaust" and urges UN member states "unreservedly to reject any denial of the Holocaust as a historical event."

Any denial. That means that every aspect of a historical narrative of recent history is now frozen in stone, infallible, and incapable of correction or modification in light of new revelations and research. In other words, the U.S. and the UN have declared in 2007 that everything that is known and can be known about the period from 1933 to 1945 in Europe regarding the persecution of Judaics by the Nazi government, is fixed, like religious dogma. The "Holocaust" is therefore an adjunct of the religion of Judaism. It is the religion of Judaism for gentiles, "Holocaustianity." It is proper to term it a state religion wherever —as in parts of Europe— denial of its sacred dogmas is enforced by fines and imprisonment. It is the first informal state religion ever established in the United States (through the synagogue disguised as the national "Holocaust Memorial Museum" in Washington, D.C.). We note that it is perfectly legal for Zionists to deny the Israeli holocaust against the Palestinians. It is perfectly legal for Prof. Deborah Lipstadt to deny the Allied holocaust against the civilian inhabitants of the city of Dresden, Germany as she did in Forward newspaper. It's legal and ethical for Judaics to deny holocausts of non-Judaics. This is a Talmudic standard.

671

Rabbinic Law Requires True Christians be Executed Israeli "Torah scholars" have ruled that: "The Torah maintains that the righteous of all nations have a place in the World to Come. But not all religious Gentiles earn eternal life by virtue of observing their religion...And while the Christians do generally accept the Hebrew Bible as truly from God, many of them (those who accept the so-called divinity of Jesus) are idolaters according to the Torah, punishable by death, and certainly will not enjoy the World to Come" ⁸⁰⁴

672

Sodomy in the Synagogue

In defiance of the Old Testament's proscription against men lying with men (Leviticus 20:13), the Talmud nullifies this Old Testament law in at least five ways: by permitting sex with boys under age nine; permitting a legal slap on the wrist for sodomy with the halachic loophole created for "accidental" sodomy; permitting the prideful estimation of the Judiac male as being incapable of sinning in this manner; permitting the act of fellatio on infants by the mohel (circumciser) during a circumcision, and by cultivating a flourishing homo-erotic culture in the all-male ritual bath scene.

In tractate Kiddushin, Judaic bachelors are permitted to sleep together while "wrapped in a single cloak." This is permissible, the rabbis decree, because Judaic males are beyond reproach when it comes to accusations of sodomy. "The rabbis said to Rabbi Yehuda: 'Jews are not to be suspected of mishkav zachur (intercourse with a male)." But, as is often the case with the Talmud, the reality is otherwise. We begin with allegations first published in the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz:

"...for many years, (Talmud scribe) Yaakov Yitzhak Brizel...sodomized ultra-Orthodox boys. The greatest rabbis knew —and did nothing...

"At the age of 11, Moisheleh, the strongest fellow in the talmud torah (school for ultra-Orthodox boys), went up to Shaiya Brizel and said to him: 'Kid, I want you know that your father is not the holy man you think he is. He is a homo.'

"...Brizel was a scion of the Brizel family, which founded ...the mysterious organization that imposes moral order on the ultra-Orthodox ghetto...Had the father, Yaakov Yitzhak Brizel...contented himself with homosexual relations with adults, it is reasonable to suppose that we would never have heard his son's story. However, in his book, The Silence of the Ultra-Orthodox,⁸⁰⁵ published a few weeks ago, the son claims that for decades his father...sodomized yeshiva students. He committed the act in empty synagogues during the hours between prayers and in other places. The greatest of the ultra-Orthodox rabbis...like Rabbi Landau and the halachic sage Shmuel Halevi Hausner of Bnei Brak, knew and kept silent. The father

.

673

was a Hasid heart and soul, and went to a number of rebbes.... the twin brother of the rebbe from Rehovot, the Rebbe of Kretschnif in Kiryat Gat, was happy to accept the father among his followers. Ultimately, claims Brizel, it was not easy for the Rebbe from Kiryat Gat to be picky when he could win such a respected adherent.

"...The proud father with the look of an honored rebbe, who observed all the commandments from the slightest to the most important, used to pray at a certain yeshiva with the young boys. There, claims Shaiya Brizel, he hunted his victims. When the head of the yeshiva discovered the true reason that the respected Torah scribe was praying fervently at his yeshiva, he did not contact the police...Before the publication of his book, Shaiya Brizel met with the yeshiva head. 'You are right that we covered up for him,' admitted the man. 'I and a few other rabbis...I was busy trying to calm things down and hushing up the affair so that it would not get publicized.'

"(The son) published the book using real names. His entire family and almost all the rabbis appear under their own names. Only the names of some of the localities and the head of the yeshiva are disguised. To protect himself from a legal point of view, Brizel held a series of conversations with members of his family and rabbis, in which he demanded explanations of why they had covered up for his father's misbehavior. He secretly recorded all these conversations, even with his mother. 'If I had written without the names it would have been fiction and this certainly did not suit me,' he explained. T wanted things to change, for ultra-Orthodox society to know that it can attempt to hide things and be hidden, but even if it takes 30 years, a Golem will always rise up against its creator and reveal everything. In this case, I was the Golem.'

"When Rachel Brizel, the daughter of a good Bnei Brak family, married an arranged match from the glorious Brizel family, she had no idea that she was destroying her own life. After six months, she caught her husband having sex with another man. In that case, at least it was with an adult. Shaiya Brizel relates that some of the boys with whom his father had relations sent letters of complaint to their own fathers; in the discreet ultra-Orthodox society they had no one else to whom they could complain. When she read these letters, my mother went out of her mind,' writes Brizel. 'Every such letter made her want to demand a divorce. Again and again batteries of mediators, the Brizel rabbis, would show up, whose job it was to calm her

674

down so that, heaven forbid, she would not destroy the good name of the Brizel family. They could live with the fact that one of their own had raped minors, but for them divorce was an impossible situation.'

"...Twice, once during prayers in a synagogue, and once during a Gemara (Talmud) study hour at Rabbi Eliezer Shach's Ponevezh Yeshiva, ultra-Orthodox men who were strangers to him touched his (Shaiya Brizel's) sexual organ, presumably on the assumption that he followed in his father's footsteps. The first time, he made a fuss, only to discover that the only thing that interested the people there was to hush the whole thing up. The second time, he made do with a whispered warning to the man. Shaiya Brizel is now 36 and the father of three; he works as an accountant. His father, 65, was forced to leave home several years ago and return to his elderly parents' apartment. Shaiya wrote this book after a suicide attempt in June.

"For all those years I was half dead. For the past five years I have been getting psychological treatment. During my talks with the psychologist I decided that I was going to spew out all this ugliness in the form of a book.'

"He took into account that there would be violent reactions to the book...which only came out a few weeks ago...Brizel suffers from a serious heart defect, which could cause his death. As a way of protecting himself, he has deposited a letter with three lawyers that contains serious allegations about the Eda Haredit, and he has informed the relevant people. Recently, he has moved to a new apartment, and he lives in the National Religious sector of a mixed community of National Religious and ultra-Orthodox families. Naturally, he started praying at the only Hasidic synagogue in the settlement. After the book came out, associates of the local rebbe (rabbi) informed him that he was persona non grata. Ironically, this same rebbe had come to the area after being compelled to leave several other communities on suspicion of having sodomized his pupils. In ultra-Orthodox society, revealing that acts of sodomy have been committed is a far graver offense than committing them. On the day the book was published, Brizel met with the head of the Hachemei Lublin Yeshiva, Rabbi Avraham Vazner. 'He told me that publishing the book was a million times worse than what my father had done...'

"Ha'aretz has been unable to obtain a response from Rabbi Yaakov Yitzhak Brizel. At his parents' home, a woman replied: 'We don't care. Shaiya is a liar and there is nothing more to be said.' Ha'aretz also requested the

675

Brizels' response through the Eda Haredit activist Yehuda Meshi-Zahav. By the time the article went to press, there was no response through this channel either. Several weeks ago the father responded to the women's magazine La'isha, saying that he would sue the publishers, which has not yet happened. It is unlikely that it will happen. Shaiya Brizel was ready to put off publication of the book, on condition that the family sue him in a rabbinical court, in which the affair would be aired. He has said that no one in the family was prepared to take up the challenge. In the conversation with La'isha, the father said that he was indeed a homosexual, 'But I have had treatment and today I am no longer like that. All this is behind me.' In reply to a question as to whether he had sexual relations with minors, he replied: 'Perhaps I will talk about that some other time.' He accused his son Shaiya of being 'the only one who is after me. He has destroyed my life...He wrote this only for the money. He wanted money from me...Because of him I separated from my wife.' Shaiya's sister, Rivka Hubert, spoke with great anger to the La'isha reporter about the fact that her brother had revealed the names of the persons involved, and declared: 'We deny everything it says in the book."⁸⁰⁶ (End quote from Haaretz).

.

676

The legal loophole the rabbi-lawyers have created for homosexuality is found in BT Sanhedrin 54b:

TRANSLATION AND COMMENTARY

iDfD Vv K^rj The Gemara draws certain conclusions from what was stated above: If someone unwittingly perpetrated sodomy upon a man, and also allowed himself to be sodomized by a man-

Rabbi Abbahu said that the few is as follows¹- According to Rabbi yishmael, the offender Is liable for two sirt offerings, one sin-ottering for violating the prohibition of *y©u shaft not lie wilh a man in the manner of a woman," and a second sin-offering for violating the prohibition of "Nor shall there be a male prostitute of the sons (or two sin-offerings. According to Rabbi Akiva, the oftender is only liable for one sin-offering.

"You shall not He with a man in me manner of a woman" and "You shall not allow sodomy with a man, in the manner of a woman" are two different readings of one and fiie same snitse, ami therefore a srngte prohibition obligating a single .sin-offering.

677

Here we encounter a Talmudic alibi created for a Judaic male found to have sodomized another male. The loophole is devised through the legal fiction of accidental sodomy: "If someone unwittingly perpetrated sodomy upon a man..." On this basis a hundred different transparently self-serving excuses are permissible grounds for a self-defense, such as: "I was drunk." "I was out of my mind." "I didn't intend it." It just happened without me realizing it" etc. It may seem extraordinary that religionists prone to riot when "gay" rights parades are convened by secularists in Jerusalem, and who publicly preach "family values" with a ferocity equivalent to the most vociferous Southern Baptist, would have created a loophole for dealing with homosexual acts with a liberal-permissive leniency (le-kula) that amounts to tacit permission. But hypocrisy and double-standards are Judaism's stock in trade, however shocking the realization of this fact may be to tender minds relentlessly conditioned by neocon American talk radio and other media, to believe that Orthodox Judaism is a rigorously scrupulous, ultra-conservative Old Testament religion. They mistake the elaborate outer show of piety that historically is the hallmark of the Pharisaic mentality, for genuine Biblical sanctity.

And what, pray tell, is accidental or "unwitting" sodomy? Since anal intercourse is a difficult and unnatural procedure that the human body by its very anatomy resists, it is not readily accomplished without some considerable preparation, effort and forethought. The whole concept of it being "unwitting" is beneath contempt.

Occasionally the situation-ethics of Judaism's counterfeit "Torah" are brought to light and the anti-Biblical consequences of making the Holy Scriptures subsidiary to rabbinic enactments are made manifest: "In Jewish Week, December 1, 2006, p. 21, Professor Judith Hauptman, the E. Billi Ivry Professor of Talmud and Rabbinic Culture at the Jewish Theological Seminary of New York,⁸⁰⁷ endorsed the acceptance of homosexuality as normative, normal and acceptable behavior according to her version of Jewish law. Prof. Hauptman is an accomplished Talmudist in scope and in methodology. She is a serious scholar whose academic writing is solid, her scholarship is balanced, reasoned, and convincing, and she may not be dismissed as a dilettante. She argues that 'the rabbis' on occasion uprooted

.
678

rules in the Torah, and she appeals to Hillel's uprooting the Sabbatical year requirement because of the needs of the hour.... Maimonides rules in Mamrim 2:4 that any court may suspend a Torah law to bring Jews back to religious law....Hillel's change was ratified by the Sanhedrin...For Prof. Hauptman, the real commander is not the Giver of the Torah, but the spinner of texts with an eye towards a legitimating community....Midrash Halakha requires the acceptance of the Sanhedrin to avoid anarchy in interpretation." ⁸⁰⁸

Homosexual Molestation of Infants in the Circumcision Rite ("Bris") of

Orthodox Judaism

The traditional Orthodox Judaic bris (circumcision) encompasses a homosexual act regarded as essential to the circumcision ritual by Talmudists. We regret having to relate to the reader the ugly and frankly nauseating details of this rite: that the mohel actually performs fellatio (metzitzah b'peh) on the baby boy by placing the infant's penis in his mouth and sucking the blood from the wounded penis with his lips. This is not an isolated case by a crazed rabbi. This is the religious norm in circumcisions performed by Orthodox rabbis in a ceremony that would be at home in the pages of Richard Von Krafft-Ebing's Psychopathia Sexualis.

The 6m consists of three stages: excision of the outer part of the prepuce (milah); cutting of the inner lining of the foreskin to uncover the glans (peri'ah); and the sucking of the blood from the circumcised penis using the mouth and lips of the mohel (metzitzah b'peh). The rabbinic circumcision rite, or bris is authorized by a combination of Talmud-derived halacha and custom (minhag). There is no support for this form of circumcision in God's law in the Old Testament. But rabbinic tradition offers ample warrant. Mishnah Shabbath 19:2: "They may perform on the Sabbath all things that are needful for circumcision: excision, tearing, sucking (the wound), and putting thereon a bandage and cumin. If this had not been pounded up on the eve of the Sabbath a man may chew it with his teeth and then apply it." ⁸⁰⁹

BT Shabbat 133b: "A. Suck (out the wound): B. Said R. Pappa, 'A Surgeon who didn't suck out the wound — that is a source of danger, and we throw him out.' C. So what else is new? Obviously, since we are prepared to

.

679

desecrate the Sabbath on that account, it is certainly dangerous not to do it! D. What might you have supposed? That this blood is stored up. So we are informed that it is the result of the wound, and in the status of a bandage and cumin: Just as when one doesn't put on a bandage and cumin, there is danger, so here, too, if one doesn't do it, there is danger." ⁸¹⁰

"The method to be adopted is laid down thus: 'One excises the foreskin, (that is) the entire skin covering the glans, so that the corona is laid bare. Afterwards, one tears with the finger-nail the soft membrane underneath the skin, turning it to the sides until the flesh of the glans appears. Thereafter, one sucks the membrane until the blood is extracted from the (more) remote places, so that no danger (to the infant) may ensue; and any circumciser who ~ does not carry out the sucking procedure is to be removed (from his office)."⁸¹¹

"And what of the practice of sucking the bleeding penis? While condemning the procedure, some physicians contend that it was used to stop bleeding. Not only is there little evidence for this theory, but it was also a largely ineffective method. Furthermore, even in antiquity, surgeons had better methods to stop bleeding, such as pressure, instruments, and medication. According to Dr. H. Speert (1953), Maimonides 'staunchly supported this procedure (sucking the penis)..." ⁸¹²

After centuries, a reform of the rite, involving the application of the lips of the mohel to a glass straw rather than directly to the penis, was first advised in the Haskalah era (late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries), by Moses Schreiber, but it was implemented only by a segment of the modern Orthodox movement. Many Judaic authorities both medical and rabbinic, continue to uphold the traditional practice of performing fellatio on the infant male: "The traditional practice of metzitzah b'peh, which has its roots in the earliest history of the Jewish people and has survived unchanged to the present time, should be viewed with great respect. It is spoken of very positively in the Jewish literature on circumcision both as an essential part of

.

680

the ritual and as a health measure which prevents infection and promotes healing." (Henry C. Romberg, M.D,. Bris Milah). ⁸¹³

"Officials at Agudath Israel, which is headed by a council of Hasidic and non-Hasidic ultra-Orthodox rabbis, have defended direct oral suction." ⁸¹⁴ "Dozens of ultra-Orthodox rabbis signed a full-page Hebrew advertisement that ran in the February 25 (2005) issue of Yated Ne'eman, defending the practice." ⁸¹⁵ "Rabbi Gerald Chirnomas from Boonton, N.J., a prominent mohel in the Greater New York region, said the practice of orally suctioning blood was the norm for centuries....Rabbi Avi Shafran, director of public affairs for Agudath Israel...said that...it is a religious tradition of many generations..." ⁸¹⁶ Another rabbinic organization, the Central Rabbinical Council, and at least two Orthodox newspapers, Yated Ne'eman (in a statement issued by Rabbi Pinchos Lipschutz in the Feb. 18, 2005 edition) and Der Yid,⁸¹⁷ also defend metzitzah b'peh. Critics will claim we are selectively reporting the controversy since some rabbinic groups have lately come out against the practice. Such claims, beginning from a dishonest premise, barely merit a response. Much of the "opposition" is from Reform Judaics, not the rabbis of Orthodox Judaism. Even when some Orthodox rabbis reluctantly seek to modify metzitzah b'peh they do so for purposes of public relations, due to knowledge about this filthy insanity being leaked to the public, thereby threatening to seriously undermine Judaism's pose as a Biblical religion and harm its prestige among the gentiles. There has been some Judaic opposition based on the act being insanitary and a means for the transmission of oral herpes, but we have seen absolutely no principled Orthodox rabbinic opposition to the rite due to the fact that it constitutes homosexuaVmolestation of the helpless infant.

"...in a day when there is great concern about sexual molestation of children, many may wonder how an adult can legally put his mouth on a child's genitals. Vincent Bonventre, a law professor at Albany Law School, said that courts often allow exemptions to general laws for religious practices.

.

681

'Cases are more difficult when there is a direct conflict between law and religion, like when a religion requires an act that is forbidden by law,' Bonventre said. 'When the government's interest is not paramount, the courts generally hold that you can't require an individual to violate their religion." ⁸¹⁸

All of the risks common to homosexual sex are present in the Orthodox Judaic bris: "Ritual Jewish circumcision that includes metzitzah with direct oral-genital contact carries a serious risk for transmission of HSV from mohels to neonates, which can be complicated by protracted or severe infection....Jewish circumcision with oral metzitzah may cause oral-genital transmission of HSV infection, resulting in clinical disease including involvement of the skin, mucous membranes, and HSV encephalitis. Furthermore, oral suction may not only endanger the child but also may expose the mohel to human immunodeficiency virus or hepatitis B from infected infants." ⁸¹⁹

"Monsey Rabbi David Eidensohn, said the spreading of disease is rare through the oral suction method. He said his five sons and numerous grandsons, as well as hundreds of thousands of newborn boys, had undergone the procedure." ⁸²⁰ "Orthodox rabbis who support the procedure say 2,000 to 4,000 such circumcisions are still performed each year in the city (of New York). They insist the procedure is safe and does not transmit herpes, which can be contracted by infants from their mothers, during childbirth. For some Jews the procedure is crucial to raising boys in a Jewish tradition...(O)ne of the most revered Orthodox leaders, Rabbi David Niederman said... 'We chose America because of religious freedom. That's why we are here...'There is no compromise on this issue, because we know it is safe." ⁸²¹

682