מספר מזהה: 6320

- מכון שלזינגר - https://www.medethics.org.il -

The source of Priah in circumsicion

שאלה:

Now I have a question I was hoping you could give me your thoughts on.
The academic velt wants to tainah that pri'ah is a takanas chachamim that they said was deoraisa in order to make it more accepted.  The reason for the takana was to prevent people from being moshech orlah.
The reason they say this is is because it is medically impossible to be moshech orlah with pri'ah, but if you do milah without proah, it is possible.
My question is that we say pri'ah is a halachah l'moshe misinai, but medically, if this is so, no one should be able to be moshech orlah.
So we have to say that all the instances of moshech orlah are cases of people who never had pri'ah, and were thus mevatel the halachah l'moshe misinai.  This would be fine, but it seems that when chazal complain about hamshachas orlah, there's no mashmaus whatsoever that the situation was bdieved to begin with.  (The nishtaneh hateva would be that way back when, meshichas orlah would be possible even with pri'ah, but the metzius has changed and it's no longer possible.)"
Is it medically true that after priah it is no longer possible to be moshech orlaso?
Thank You,

תשובה:

1. The reality is that meshichas orlah is possible also for someone who had priah. This is through a gradual process or stretching the skin in the distal (distant) portion of the penis. When it is sufficiently stretched, it can cover the majority of the glans (tip) and the person may look uncircumcised.
2. The true reason (ta'ama dikra) for priah seems that without priah, when the inner layer of skin still adheres to the glans, the inner skin is liable to harden in the healing process and appear similar to the original orlah skin. Sometimes it can grow and cover a broader part of the glans.

3. Regarding the Academic approach mentioned in the question (see for example Nisan Rubin's article on the subject – משיכת עורלה ותקנת הפריעה, ציון : רבעון לחקר תולדות ישראל, תשמ"ט , גליון נד pp. 105-117) – it is wrong both historically and physiologically. In the Holocaust,  there is evidence (Levin S., Circumcision and uncircumcision, S Afr Med J 1976; 50: 913) of Jews attempting to save their lives by undergoing the process of foreskin reconstruction by streching the skin ("Meshicha") as well as by surgical procedure. See a review of the methods used historically for reversing reconstruction: S.B. Brandes , J.W. McAninch, Surgical methods of restoring the prepuce: a critical review, BJU International (1999), 83, Suppl. 1, 109–113.

Dr. Mordechai Halperin