top of page


June 23, 2015

“Direct oral suction ignores the teachings of modern medicine and the overwhelming consensus of modern rabbinic rulings. Behavior by mohelim and local politicians that ignores fundamental principles of hygiene, and abrogates their responsibility to protect innocent children, is shameful and simply wrong, despite their express desire to maintain ancient religious traditions.”


Web MD


US National Library of Medicine 

National Institute of Health


American Academy of Pediatrics 

American Academy of Pediatrics 


Rav David Brofsky


Dr. Gary Gelbfish


Risk of cervical cancer, HPV, and some sexually transmitted infections is less among circumcised partners, study shows

The Advertiser-News


MDLinx Internal Medicine


Frontiers in Public Health


Hindawi: Advances in Urology

Hindawi: Advances in Urology


Science Daily

Science Daily


World Journal of Clinical Pediatrics

Our risk-benefit analysis showed that benefits exceeded procedural risks, which are predominantly minor, by up to 200 to 1. We estimated that more than 1 in 2 uncircumcised males will experience an adverse foreskin-related medical condition over their lifetime.



Circumcised men have a 47% reduced risk of HPV. This includes 83% reduced risk of HPV on the urethra, 56% reduced risk on the glans, and 47% reduced risk on the shaft.


AAP News and Journals

Conclusions: [The] data suggest[s] that circumcision does not alter feeding after circumcision. This information will be useful in counseling families regarding circumcision in the newborn period.



This first systematic review of male circumcision and ulcerative STI strongly indicates that circumcised men are at lower risk of chancroid and syphilis. There is less association with HSV‐2. Potential male circumcision interventions to reduce HIV in high risk populations may provide additional benefit by protecting against other STI.


AAP News and Journal

CONCLUSIONS: The large number of nonmedical postneonatal circumcisions suggests that neonatal circumcision might be a missed opportunity for these boys. Delay of nonmedical circumcision results in greater risk for the child, and a more costly procedure. Discussions with parents early in pregnancy might help them make an informed decision about circumcision of their child.



CONCLUSIONS: The medicolegal impact of neonatal infection by the mohel has to be redefined. Our findings provide evidence that ritual 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. The same consideration that led the Talmudic sages once to establish the custom of the metzitzah for the sake of the infant could now be applied to persuade the mohel to use instrumental suction.


Circumcision Choice

A group of concerned citizens who have first-hand experience dealing with the crazy online world of anti-circumcision activism. They are neither trying to promote circumcision nor discourage it, but they definitely want to promote good information for parents and other interested people with regards to routine infant circumcision.​

Someone needs to stand up for informed consent and parental choice when it comes to circumcision. Someone also needs to stand up against the bullying and hate speech by anti-circumcision fanatics! Enough is enough!


Conclusions: Complications of circumcision are rare in Israel and in most cases are mild and correctable. There appears to be no significant difference in the type of complications between medical and ritual circumcisions.

bottom of page