Tuesday, September 3, 2013

A Gentile Physician Defends Metzizah B'Peh in 1900


Peter Charles Remondino (1846-1926) was an Italian-American physician, who served on the San Diego Board of Health. Despite not being Jewish, he wrote a remarkably positive book on circumcision, which he supported on medical grounds, titled a History of Circumcision from the Earliest Times to the Present. Among the topics he covers is that of Metzizah B'Peh, the oral suction of the circumcision wound, which has, in recent years been the topic of some controversy. According to Remondino:

Intelligent rabbis, devoted to their religion, are necessarily prone to defend any of the details in its ceremonials that age and practice have sanctioned, and even some of the later writings of Israelism seem to make the mezizah, or suction, a necessary and ceremonial detail. In the "Guimara," composed in the fifth century, Rabbi Rav Popé uses these words: "All operators who fail to use suction, and thereby cause the infant to fun any risk, should be destituted of the right to perform the ceremony." In the "Mishna" it says, "It is permitted on the Sabbath to do all that is necessary to perform circumcision, excision, denudation, and suction." The "Mishna" was composed during the second century. The celebrated Maimonides lent it his sanction, as in his work on circumcision he advises suction, to avoid any subsequent danger. Our modern Israelites are supposed, as a rule, to have taken their authority, aside from previous usage and custom, from the "Beth Yosef," which was written by Joseph Karo, and subsequently annotated by the Rabbi Israel Isserth. In all of these sanctions, however, there is no reason expressed why it should be performed. Maimonides undoubtedly looked upon this act as having a decided tendency or action in depleting the immediate vessels in the vicinity of the cut surface, and that the consequent constriction in their calibre would prevent any future haemorrhage. That this is the natural result of suction is a fact readily understood by any modern physician. The depletion of the vessel for some distance in its length, with the contraction in the coast that follows, is certainly a better preventive to consequent haemorrhage than the simple application of any styptic preparation that can only be placed at the mouth of the vessel, but which leaves its calibre intact. Hot water, or an extreme degree of cold, will answer to produce this contraction and depletion, but there is here a local physical reaction that is more liable to occur than when the contraction has taken place naturally, as when induced by depletion, instead of by the stimulus of either heat or cold. So that if, in the light of modern civilization and changed conditions of mankind, and the existence of diseases which formerly did not exist, we are now convinced that suction is dangerous, we should not judge the ancients too hastily or rashly for having adopted the custom, as it is certainly not without some scientific merit; although, authorities are not wanting who hold that suction or depletion increases the danger of haemorrhage. (Remondino, History of Circumcision, 153-54.)

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Uuuuuuuuuuh...
NO!

More like: a "Jew Physician Defends Metzizah B'Peh"

Sorry, Dr. Peter Charles Remondino was a Jew, a crypto-Jew to be precise. He was definitely NOT an "Italian-American." (And really how could he have been? Certainly not by nationality as Italy did not yet exist as a nation-state while he lived there. He was born in Turin in 1846 but left well before the Risorgimento.)

I mean had you bothered looking into it, you would see that he was clearly a Jew! (Why decent Jews like you wish to defend criminal Jews like Remondino mystifies me!)

Anonymous said...

Considering that:

(1) He seems to avoid mention of Italian ancestry and actually going to outrageous lengths to deny such ancestry, at least on his maternal side. [He describes his mother as "Ligurian-Gaulish" (no doubt owing to times when theories of Celtic affinities of the ancient Ligurian people were in vogue) which is strange considering that the Romans exterminated the Ligurians and such Celtic peoples in the vicinity. And ethnic Italians proudly claim Roman (Latin) descent, with the possible exception of Padanists, but I don't think that applies.] He describes his father simply as a "Lombard" (but that could have been in a mere provincial sense as Italy was not a nation-state at the time so there was no Italian nationality as such). Most likely, his mother was a Jewess and his father a Jew from Lombardy.

(2) While he does claim an Italian Catholic ancestor (the Renaissance anatomist Mondino de Luizzi), his claim of descent is spurious at best. He quotes the Dizionario Biografico Universale (Florence ed. 1844, vol. 3) as saying that "Mondino" is a derivative or abbreviation of "Remondino" and, while I do not have access to that particular book, so I can not vouch for whether Remondino fabricated the quote or the mistake was on the part of the Dizionario's author. Most sources do not suggest a link between the names "Mondino" and "Remondino" but the issue is moot because Mondino was the given name of that eminent Italian-Catholic doctor of the Renaissance era. (His surname would have been de Luizzi or some variant thereof!) Of course, that fraudulent link may have beeb less a matter of Remondino concealing his Jewish ancestry than attempting to bolster his credentials via a link to a famous anatomist and physician, thereby "legitimizing" his own quackery.

(3) As for the name "Remondino" it is a variant on Remondini, a fairly common Sephardic/Italian-Jewish surname.

(4) He is identified as a "Protestant" (itself a suspicious signal given his Italian origins). Granted, his "Ligurian-Gaulish" [read: Jewish] mother belonged to the Waldensians, who were based in the Piedmont near Turin at the time. Also, he publicly professed his Waldensian-Protestant beliefs in his autobiography. Also, he was a Freemason. Yet a biographer claims that he had an intention to enroll at the College of Propaganda in Rome (a Roman Catholic institution) to take religious orders in the [Roman Catholic] Church. Now why would a man who was raised in a Waldensian household and who later in life joined the (anti-Catholic) Freemasons consider serving in the Catholic Church? Because he was a subversive crypto-Jew on a mission to subvert the Catholic Church (but following his interest in the medical profession decided to subvert Gentile society in another way, by conning idiot goyim into mutilating their male members).

(5) He was undoubtedly circumcised, most likely in infancy, or at least at an age too young to remember. (Clearly given his aggressive advocacy of compulsory universal male circumcision he was circumcised himself. Nobody can possibly be that much of a hypocrite, not even a compulsive liar like Remondino. There would have to be limits even to HIS dishonesty. Most of his claims were obvious embellishment, fluff, and downright lies, but even he had to believe SOME of his claims at SOME level, or have some ulterior motive to promote it. Yet he never mentions when/where/why/how/by whom he was circumcised. Not to mention, his bizarre rambling anti-foreskin screed reads as if written by somebody who knows nothing of having a foreskin.) Now ask yourself. Would an "Italian" gentile be circumcised in the 1840s ("Protestant" or otherwise)? No!

Anonymous said...

(6) Indeed, his aggressive promotion of circumcision is suspect. He cites tons of bogus reasons for it (implying that the prepuce is the most deadliest thing ever!) and implying that circumcision confers some level of invincibility. Clearly he had an ulterior motive. (And as a crypto-Jew, his was primarily for cryptos to blend into the gentile population.)

(7) He shows a suspiciously high level of familiarity with the Talmud and rabbinical literature, and in a time when Jews were careful to keep such material away from gentile eyes lest they take any of it from context to corroborate anti-Semitic sentiment.

(8) He kind of looks Jewish (itself weak evidence admittedly) but at least one illustration of him looks like an offensive Nazi caricature of what a "Jew" looks like (i.e. the stereotypical droopy eyes that some, but by no means all Jews have).

(9) He was surprisingly philo-Semitic (astonishing given his historical context). Granted, part of it could be explained by Waldensian influence. (The Waldensians being a rabidly philo-Semitic sect and they sheltered his mother's Jewish family.) But even Jews at the time displayed some "anti-Semitic" sentiment. (Marx being an infamous example, but even Herzl and other early Zionists showed some sympathy for gentile anti-Semitism.)

Verdict: Dr. Remondino was a crypto-Jew born of a crypto-Jewish mother (from a family of professing Waldensian crypto-Jews) and a crypto-Jewish father from Lombardy who fled persecution by moving to Turin and later the USA. His father was a Jewish supremacist bigot who wanted "revenge" on the goyische world so he brought his son up to subvert gentile society.

Sources:
Peter Charles Remondino Autobiography

LA Co. Bios: Peter Charles Remondino

Izgad said...

I am neither defending Remondino nor attacking him. You clearly know more about him than I do. My interest here was that someone other than a Haredi Jew was defending metzitzah, a practice I certainly do not support. In general I prefer it that people identify themselves particularly when they use highly loaded rhetoric.