Has Psychology created an oversensitivity to torment or discovered it?

Professor Marc Shapiro has again raised the issue which we have talked about in the past (March 2012)

4. In a recent post on his blog, R. Daniel Eidensohn refers to my comment in this post where I suggested that the lenient attitude towards pedophilia in much of right wing Orthodoxy is due to the fact that the real trauma of sexual abuse is not something that one can learn about in traditional Jewish sources but comes to us from psychology, and as such is suspect in those circles that see psychology as a “non-Jewish” discipline. Let me offer another example that illustrates how today we take sexual abuse much more seriously than in previous years. Here is a responsum no. 378 from R. Joseph Hayyim’s Torah li-Shemah. [...]

====================================

However as I get further in my investigation of emotional abuse and rabbinic sources - it is becoming increasingly obvious that a much  more important issue is whether psychology has now revealed that which always existed but no one knew about it - or alternatively that psychology (and musar) have created a sensitivity and psychological vulnerability that didn't exist before. 

This is not only in the issue of child abuse - but chinuch where we see that beatings and shame have become to be viewed in our time as being wrong in the frum world.  We now focus on avoiding emotional abuse rather than toughness or discipline which is clear from Makkos 8 or Rav Dessler is the goal of chinuch.

This issue is relevant also for divorce. It seems clear that the Torah was not "sensitive" to the feelings of women. It would seem that the rabbinic laws such as Kesubos or Rabbeinu Gershon's decree not to force a divorce - were not because of concern for feelings but because concern for social stability that resulted by making divorce more difficult. Even the halacha of not to be hasty in divorcing your first wife because even the Altar sheds tears (Gittin 90b) - seems to be directed to social stability and not because of psychological trauma the wife suffers from divorce. There is no problem of being hasty for the second marriage. The halacha views the issue of hasty divorce of the first wife as one of betrayal of the commitment of the husband to a woman he married when they were teenagers - not because the wife is being discarded for a better cook or younger woman or that she will be devastated.

Update March 13
I am asking a very fundamental question. In order to explain the absence of the mention of trauma from abuse in the literature, I am suggesting that it is a result of the change of our psychological sensitivity which is the result in change in education and attitudes toward suffering.

I view the relatively recent development of the concept of empathy as support for my thesis.

An alternative is Dr. Shapiro's view that the absence simply indicates that society was unaware of the terrible consequences of abuse and trauma's of all sorts.

You are claiming that support for my hypothesis is merely an artifact of my defintions of terms. Perhaps - but I think it is much more fruitful to explore the question then to define it away.

There a story about a resident doctor talking to his supervisor. The superivsor asked him for a diagnosis of a difficult case. The resident proudly rattles off an obscure explanation which seemed to fit the case very accurately. The superverisor responded, "The only problem with your diagnosis is that there is nothing we can do and the condition is terminal. However there is an alternative diagnosis while less likely than the one you gave - however there is a cure for it. Why don't we take the chance of the less likely diagnosis?"

My position is that my explanation is more productive and useful than giving an explanation which involves either ignorance or deliberately sacrificing the victim for the sake of family or community.

If it is true that trauma is a function of education and attitudes than that provides a powerful tool for preventing trauma - as opposed to picking up the pieces after the crash. 

 

In short - is the absence of rabbinic writings referring to psychological pain - the result of ignorance or because the pain did not exist and it is a recent development?

Caring for the Sinner: Homosexuality and Empathy

One of the issues that Rav Triebitz raised at yesterday's discussion is the possibility that the Netziv's approbation for the Chofetz Chaim's Ahavas Chesed - is indicative of the emergence of the empathetic approach versus the more traditional "everything is halacha" approach. The Netziv asserts that concerning bein adam l'chavero mitzvos, commonsense has a significant role in doing what is correct. In contrast the Chofetz Chaim lists halachic obligations and halachic reasoning. In essence he noted, the Netziv is undermining the Chofetz Chaim's approach - even though he gave a haskoma to the sefer. He noted also that Rav Sternbuch had related that at a major rabbinic conference the Chofetz Chaim had requested that the major rabbonim there sign a pledge never to speak lashon harah again. Rav Chaim Ozer took the document and ripped it up saying that a rav needs to be able to speak and listen to lashon harah. He said the dichotomy is whether seichel and human understanding is an essential component of fulfilling the mitzvos or does Torah precede the reality of creation in the sense that everything is halacha and human feelings are irrelevant.

In addition, Rav Trievitz noted this empathetic, intuitive approach is also referred to as yashrus. The Netziv's Introduction to Bereishis is one of strongest statements for the need for Yashrus - even in the face of piety. He famously stated that the Temple was destroyed because of the fanatic tzadikim who viewed all those who disagreed with them as apikorsim who were subject to capital punishment. 

At the end the introduction the Netziv notes that even though sin is to be hated - but we see that Avraham prayed for the lives and welfare of the sinner.

Rather G-d wanted tzadikim who were upright in the world. Because even if the non‑upright tzadikim were motivated by religious consideration - such conduct destroys the world. Therefore, this was the praise of the Avos that besides being tzadikim and chassidim and lovers of G‑d to the ultimate degree - they were also upright. That means that they conducted themselves in relation to the peoples of the world - even the debased idol worshippers - with love and were concerned about their welfare in regards to the preservation of Creation. This we see in the pleading of Avraham for the people of Sedom - even though he had total hatred for them because of their wickedness - nevertheless he wanted them to live…

 Thus Rav Triebitz wanted to say that the Netziv emphasized the importance of empathy and this was manifest in the love of the sinner. He noted that this distinction possibly is reflected in the recent change amongst some Orthodox leaders towards homosexuals. Those such as Rav Aharon Feldman who have called for understanding and sympathy for the homosexual - while rejected the sin - are manifesting empathy. As opposed to this there are more traditional rabbis such as Rav Moshe Sternbuch who view this as a major breach in the mesora and that the sinner needs to be condemned and not be viewed with sympathy or empathy.

Sexual offenders IV - Empathy deficit and Torah

 This is a post from the past where the subject of empathy was raised. My understanding of the Chovas HaLevavos has changed and I don't view it as an example of empathy since it is focused on one's own pain - not the other's.

============================

December 12 2008  Last week, as part of my research on the problem of child abuse, my chavrusa Dr. Shulem and I visited Doron Aggassi - the director of Shalom Bana'ich in Bnei Berak. As you may recall he was asked by HaRav Silman to create a community treatment program as an alternative to jail or ignoring the problem. One of the interesting points he made was that treatment consists primarily of sensitizing the perpetrators to the fact that they are actually hurting someone by their actions. This reinforces the point made in the psychological literature that there is apparently a cognitive deficit in the perpetrators and they tend not to view their victims as people - such as them -who feel pain and suffer.

We talked about the issue of why the large number of commandments regarding not hurting others should not be relevant. In other words, a secular person who is not aware that G-d has commanded not to hurt, embarrass or degrade another has some justification for his self-gratification at the expense of another. But how is it possible for people who are accomplished Torah scholars not to be sensitive?

It reminded me of something Rabbi Friefeld had said many years ago. "If the mugger was aware of the pain he caused by stealing another's money or felt the devastation that resulted from killing a husband and father and friend - it would be impossible for him to commit the crime.

So why doesn't the perpetrator feel? I just spent time researching the issue of empathy - feeling the pain of others - and so far it looks like there is no such concept in the Torah literature. There is clearly an explicit obligation to help the poor, to not hurt others, to love one's fellow man. However none of these are presented as issues of empathy but are simply cognitive behavior guidelines. Someone says he is hungry you give him food. But where do we find that we are supposed to feel the pain and suffering of the person we are to help?

I found a clear exception to the above pattern in Chovas HaLevavos (Introduction to Avodas HaShem):

The benefactor gives to the poor because the debased state of the poor person causes him pain. Thus the benefactor’s intent is to eliminate the pain that he himself is experiencing as a result of his empathetic upset and anguish cause by the condition of the poor person who arouses his pity. The benefactor can be compared to someone who cures his own pain which exists because of the good that G‑d has given him. Nevertheless the benefactor deserves to be praised in spite of his self‑serving motivation. As Job (31:19) said, “Have I ever seen someone die because he lacked clothing or a poor person that lacked covering – that I have not been blessed by clothing him and who was not warmed by the fleece of my sheep.” It is clear from what we have presented that the motivation of those who help other people is for their own selfish benefit. It is either to enhance his existence in this world or the world to come or to stop the pain he feels because of the other person’s suffering or to improve his own possessions.

Chovas HaLevavos is clearly stating that it is inherent in human beings to feel empathetic pain and anguish of others. So why is this not reflected in the Torah literature - until perhaps we get to the Mussar movement or the Chassidic movement? One possibility is that since it was always assumed to be inherent - there was not need to discuss it. Alternatively it could be that empathy is simply just not a Jewish value.

Irregardless of whether empathy is explicit or implicit as a Jewish value - the critical point is that molesters do not have empathetic awareness of their victim's suffering. It also seems that they are unaware of the connection between all the mitzvos concerning people such as "love your fellow man" and what they are doing.

A significant goal for what I am writing is to try to show how the mitzvos and prohibitions can be understood from the empathetic point of view. Furthermore as Doron Agassi noted, there are clearly some perpetrators who simply don't connect the laws of Shulchan Aruch to what they are doing. Torah learning is viewed as an abstract activity that is unconnected with the real world.

Thus three goals exist so far. 1) collect the Torah literature regarding hurting others, rodef, mesira as well as obligation to call police 2) Integrate the psychological facts regarding the damage that is done with the specific prohibitions and commandments - to increase empathetic aware of the harm 3) Clarify and elaborate and concretize the prohibitions and commandments so that they are seen as applicable to real life situations. [to be continued]

Charity given with wife's assistance - still considered giving secretly/ Heter of Chazon Ish to speak lashon harah to wife

Rav Yitzchok Zilberstein (Avoda Zara 39a): Question: It is well known that tzedaka (charity) given secretly is considerably superior to that given publicly...This is discussed in Bava Basra (9). The question arises what is the status of charity given by a man when his wife writes the check and helps distribute the money to the poor? Does this assistance cause the loss of the status of charity given secretly since his wife knows about it? Similarly what is the status of money if his son helps him?

Answer: It says in Kesubos (67b) "Mar ‘Ukba had a poor man in his neighbourhood into whose door-socket he used to throw four zuz every day. Once [the poor man] thought: ‘I will go and see who does me this kindness’. On that day [it happened] that Mar ‘Ukba was late at the house of study and his wife was coming home with him. As soon as [the poor man] saw them moving the door he went out after them, but they fled from him and ran into a furnace from which the fire had just been swept. Mar Ukba's feet were burning and his wife said to him: Raise your feet and put them on mine. As he was upset, she said to him, ‘I am usually at home and my benefactions are direct. And what [was the reason for] all that?— Because Mar Zutra b. Tobiah said in the name of Rab (others state: R. Huna b. Bizna said in the name of R. Simeon the Pious; and others again state: R. Johanan said in the name of R. Simeon b. Yohai): Better had a man thrown himself into a fiery furnace than publicly put his neighbour to shame. Whence do we derive this? From [the action of] Tamar; for it is written in Scripture, When she was brought forth, [she sent to her father-in-law]. "

The Meiri writes that there are different levels some of which are mentioned her and some that are mentioned in other places... That which is mentioned here is when the donor knows who the recipient is but the recipient doesn’t know who the donor is. This is the case where Mar Ukva was accustomed to give every day a sela in the door of the a poor man who was his neighbor. Once he was late leaving the beis medrash and he didn’t want to go alone at night so his wife went with him. Because  a wife is considered to be part of her husband (ishto k’gufo) her knowledge of the tzedaka did not take away from it being giving secretly. One when he realized that the poor man was trying to discover who the donor was, Mar Ukva ran away so as to not embarrass him. About this it is said that it is better for a man to throw himself into a furnace and not publicly embarrass another.

The Meiri explains that the fact that Mar Ukva’s wife knew about the tzedaka did not take it out of the category of giving secretly because a man’s wife is like himself (ishto k’gufo). We can apply this to our question and say that there is no lowering of the status of the tzedaka by the fact that the wife writes the checks. However it be a lowering of the status of the tzedaka wrote the checks. That is because only the wife is considered to be like the husband himself and no one else. Consequently if the son wrote the checks it would lower its status to some degree of being tzedaka given in private.

Concerning the prohibition of lashon harah, the Chofetz Chaim (Lashon Harah 8:10) writes, “You should know that there is no halachic distinction concerning speaking lashon harah whether he says it to other people ... or to his wife... Many people err by telling the lashon harah to their wives regarding all that happened to them concerning so and so in the beis medrash or street. Not only is he violating the prohibition of lashon harah but he is increasing disputes and fights because of the lashon harah... “ In Be’er Mayim Chaim he proves that it is still considered lashon harah even when he tells it to his wife – from Avos D’Rabbi Nosson (Chapter 7), “Do not speak a lot with the wife. For example when a man comes from the beis medrash when they didn’t treat him with proper respect or he had a problem with his study partner – he should not go and tell his wife the details because he degrades himself and his study partner.”

However it is mentioned in the name of the Chazon Ish that there are times when a man can tell lashon harah to his wife – because a wife is like himself (ishto k’gufo). That is when his intent in saying the lashon harah is not to increase hatred but simply to remove that which is in his heart – and it is clear to him that his wife will not tell anyone else what he said. [See Chofetz Chachim (Hilchos Lashon Harah  clall 10 Mekor Mayim Chaim 14)].

Spilling soup on someone to stop bitul Torah: Rav Zilberstein

Rav Yitzchok Zilberstein (Bava Kama 28a): Question: Reuven was preventing Shimon from learning Torah. Shimon went and spilled a plate of soup on Reuven’s jacket and stained it. Is Shimon obligated to pay to clean it? Answer: It says in Shulchan Aruch (C.M. 420:13) concerning two people who beat each other... however if one of them starts the fight the second one is exempt. That is because the victim has the option of fight back in order to save himself. The Rema there adds that this is true also for verbal and emotional abuse - the one who starts is obligated to pay a fine. Furthermore the Terumas HaDeshen (#218) writes that whenever you have a situation of having subordinates then it is correct to hit the subordinate to stop them from sinning. If so then it would seem that surely Shimon was the right to hit Reuven to stop him from interfering with his Torah learning. Also look at Yam shel Shlomo (Bava Kama 3:9) who writes that it is not only in the case of a master and his slave or a husband and his wife but the law is the same for any Jew who is able to hit someone to stop him from sinning. This is mentioned in Erchin (16). Therefore it is permitted to hit others to stop any sin. However this is only if his intent is for the sake of Heaven and he is firmly established himself as sterling example of Torah Jew. The Teumim (4:1) brings the words of the Yam shel Shlomo and simply says that it is permitted to stop all Jews from sinning. Therefore it would appear that it is permitted for Shimon to spill soup on Reuven’s jacket.

Halachic authority requires being committed to the Torah system

A kollel member sent me a question today regarding a scholarly Conservative Jew who has traditional sources justifying selectively not keeping Torah mitzvos. He said he couldn't find any errors in the reasoning of the Conservative Jew - and he wanted to know how to answer him.

I replied, in part, that first a person has to be committed to the same religious system as you before he has a vote on altering it - even if the alterations seem to be in agreement with halachic rules. That is why gedolim are entrusted to make statements that the run of the mill yeshiva student learning the same issues - is not. Would the same question arise if a Christian scholar who knew Shas and Poskim made a pronouncement?

Today's email also brought a related issue - regarding the Modern Orthodox. As you are aware, I have spent considerable time concerning the question of pressuring a husband to give a Get in a case where the wife claims she doesn't want to be married to him anymore. In particular I have devoted much effort on this blog discussing the issues of the Friedman-Epstein divorce case and why ORA which is supported by Rabbi Herschel Schachter has no basis in halacha for pressuring the husband through either embarrassment or financial loss. On the other hand Rabbi Schachter, who clearly is aware of the problem of get me'usa, feels that the demonstrations don't produce one. This post is not about whether I view Rabbi Schachter as a halachic authority - I definitely do.

Recently ORA conducted another demonstration against Aharon Friedman in Washington to apply the prohibited pressure for him to give a Get. Amongst those demonstrating were members of the Berman Hebrew Academy - a co-ed Modern Orthodox school in the Washington area. The headmaster of the school - who helped organized the protests writes about why it was necessary to protest - and mentions that ORA gave the students a seminar to persuade students to demonstrate. This is the focus of this post.

Berman Hebrew Acadamy Headmaster clearly does not understand the halachic problem of Get me'usa and simply feels the issue is one of social justice when he wrote:

We have spoken in school about the plight of agunot a number of times, so I was caught by surprise when several of our students expressed reluctance to go to the rally.  For some, it was merely a question of strategy (are rallies effective, might they backfire, etc.)  These are reasonable questions and reasonable people may differ.  Other concerns revolved around a concern that we were hearing only one side and that we should not protest until we hear from Aharon Friedman as well.

Here’s where I was a little more taken aback.  On the surface, this concern also seems reasonable, but in the context of agunot, I don’t believe that one need to hear both sides…and clearly, our education on the topic did not resolve these questions for the students.

My response to the students would be as follows: We are not taking sides in a divorce proceedings or whether one is a better spouse/parent than the other.  There should be NO EXCUSE for using a halakhic loophole to blackmail or extort the other side.  This is a distortion of the nature of halakhah and its purposes, and it makes no difference if he has legitimate claims against her. [...]

Our Judaism is supposed to elevate us, bring us closer to Hashem, make us better citizens of the world, and more responsible to each other.  When religion is used to bring pain, it detracts from all of us.  This is an unintended consequence of a legal system in which loopholes necessarily exist, but it is not a result that we should accept.

In the end, I had no need to speak directly with the students, because we ran a program this morning directly from ORA (Organization for the Resolution of Agunot).  The program was excellent and helped to scope out the whole range of issues involved.  Kol ha-kavod to ORA’s executive director Rabbi Jeremy Stern and to David Marks (Class of 2007) who helped to organize and run the program.  And kol ha-kavod to our seniors, who took the time to consider their important messages carefully and thoughtfully.

Update: March 7 -  Just received this comment

 Hebrew Academy's connection to the Epstein family

Daattorah recently posted a blog entry by Dr. Joshua Levisohn, headmaster of the Berman Hebrew Academy, who argues that the facts (other than that the parties are civilly divorced and no get was given) in the Epstein-Friedman matter are irrelevant and that therefore getting Aharon Friedman's point of view would be pointless.  Unfortunately, he lacks the integrity to disclose his school's connection to one of the parties in this matter.  Tamar Epstein's sister, Yael Cortell, has taught at his school for many years [ www.linkedin.com/pub/cortell-yael/46/498/298; http://www.mjbha.org/About_Us/Users_Guide_to_MJBHAs_Admin/Users_Guide_to_MJBHAs_Administration.cfm].   

Dr. Levisohn's assertion that custody is a matter for the courts rejects the halacha that such matters be decided by a beis din, but then again perhaps that should not be surprising, for as Rabbi Eidensohn previously noted, it does not appear that Dr. Levisohn necessarily accepts halacha.  Dr. Levisohn's assertion is also ironic, given that Tamar successfully argued that Aharon could not challenge her unilateral relocation of the child in court specifically because he had agreed to cancel an earlier court trial to bring the matter to beis din [whose orders regarding dismissing the civil case Tamar violated]. 

Update: March 11

Rabbi Eidensohn,

My previous email may not have been clear.

On Daatorah, Rabbi Daniel Eidensohn and Rabbi Dovid Eidensohn have expressed concern that various prominent rabbonim are acting contrary to halacha with regard to the circumstances under which a husband may be subject to different degrees of coercion to give a get.  These rabbonim seem to be changing halacha in this area without providing any explanation for this change.  

It seems to me that some of these rabbonim are clearly setting out new generally applicable principles that they explicitly say would apply all cases.  Other rabbonim just appear to be applying new rules in very specific cases without purporting to pronounce new principles that would be broadly applicable to other cases.  

ORA’s leaders, Rabbi Jeremy Stern and Rabbi Hershel Schachter, are clearly setting out new generally applicable principles regarding when coercion may be used.  They are not just applying these principles to specific individual cases.  Rabbi Schachter has given several speeches on this point that are on YU's website and that have been analyzed on Daatorah.  

But the more right wing rabbonim have only intervened in specific cases.  So far as I know, they have not made general statements about what degree of coercion may be used regarding a get in which types of cases.  It also seems that they have gotten involved in cases in which they have close family connections to one side in the disputes.  Rabbi Malkiel Kotler is a first cousin to Ms. Dodelson's mother.  Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky has longstanding close relationships with the Epstein family [For example See Dr. Dovid Epstein, z’l, Yated Ne’eman, May 4, 21012 (attached, noting how close Dr. Epstein was to Rabbi Kamenetsky and featuring a picture of the two, and Dr. Epstein’s involvement in the Philadelphia Orthodox community); http://articles.philly.com/2010-04-20/news/25213049_1_family-physician-geriatric-medicine-future-wife “Dr. Epstein [Tamar’s father] was an active supporter of Talmudical Yeshiva of Philadelphia [of which Rabbi Kamenetsky is founder and rosh yeshiva], a religious school for Orthodox Jewish boys and young men in Overbrook. He volunteered his medical services to the school and was on call to care for the students 24/7, said a close friend, Rick Goldfein [Tamar’s Rabbinical Court lawyer and press spokesman].”  

A Breslover Joke from Rav Yaakov Meir Schechter

Last night my routine was interrupted  by a phone call from a relative requesting that I speak at Sheva Berachos in Meah Shearim. There were relatives of the Chasan and Kallah who would be attending who only understood English and none of the participants was fluent in English. I took the bus and got off just before Kikar Shabbat and wandered into the dark streets of Meah Shearim looking for the apartment. 

When I found the typically small Meah Shearim apartment with all the wall lined with seform, it turned out that the host and all the non-family guests were all Breslover's. Their native language was Yiddish - including one man who was sitting next to me from Boro Park - who had as much difficulty speaking in English as I did in Yiddish. Despite the language barrier these chasidim succeeded in making everyone comfortable and provided the appropriate atmosphere of singing and dancing - and eating.

When it came time for me to speak - they asked me who I was and  what I did? When I mentioned that I was a psychologist one of the guests  asked, with a twinkle in his eye, whether I would you like to hear a joke? I of course asked to hear it. I was curious to know what this member of an alien culture considered a joke that I could comprehend and appreciate.

He said he wanted to tell me something he heard in the name of  Rav Yaakov Meir Schechter

 - a Breslover who is known as a tremendous tzadik. He devotes himself to others - especially those who are not the most successful members of society. 

"Rav Schechter said that if all psychiatric medicines were in liquid form they would have the halachic status of chamar medina (a national beverage)."

Your child reports being abused: What would you do?

I was recently consulted by a father whose son reported being abused by his rebbe. I think it useful to ascertain what you would have done in his case. While it is clear that major advances have occurred in the frum community in the last few years - the situation is unfortunately not where it should be.

Case: 5 year old son returns from school and tells his father that his teacher hurt him in his private parts. Father contacts two well regarded rabbis who tell him unequivocally to call the police. However a friend put him in contact with a gadol who tells him that he needs to get a consultation with a therapist who is an expert in abuse to first evaluate [and will violate mandated reporting laws and not report the abuse] and this needs to be supervised by a rabbi - since there is no clear proof that his son was molested. And even if this expert determines that there was abuse - he needs to get the permission of the rav of his community before he calls the police. He contacts the rav of the community who says that normally he would recommend calling the police in this situation however for political reasons he can't do anything regarding the yeshiva that the son attends.

After this the father is very confused so another friend recommends that he call me. I explain the situation from the psychological and halachic perspectives. I tell him that it is very unlikely that his son is making up false claims and that he needs to call the police. Aside from his son's welfare - he needs to protect the community against the teacher. That as long as there is a reasonable basis to believe the son was molested he can and is required to call the police. Father agrees that it is best to call the police - but first asks what will be the consequences. I explain that there is a distinct possibility that he will be ostracized by the community and that his son will be kicked out of school and not be accepted in in any of the community's other schools.

In addition - even though therapy would probably be successful that there would be negative consequences to shidduch possiblities for the son and other siblings. Father said he can't have that happen. He said that one rabbi suggested that the teacher simply be monitored to ensure he has no yichud with the students  and that is sufficient. I asked him if he willing to allow other children to be abused in order to preserve his status in the community. He said - "I need to think about this."

What would you do? Would you take the risk of sacrificing your family's place in the community in order to report a teacher who is abusing children?  That would practically speaking mean that you would need to move to another community and even there might not escape the negative consequences such as being called a moser? In addition your child would be forever branded as a molested kid and have reduced chances of a decent shidduch and that his siblings would have have significant problem.

Emotional abuse: Embarrassing with strong praise?

Among the prohibitions of emotional abuse is that of embarrassing someone. In fact embarrassing another person has been described in the commentaries as an aspect of murder.

The following story told by Rabbi Zilberstein raises an interesting problem regarding the parameters of the prohibition.

Rav Isser Zalman Meltzer had a group of talmidei chachom who met with him discussing various Torah issues. Amongst the group was a yeshiva bachur. At some point in the discussion the bachur made a comment and Rav Issser Zalman got very exicted. He told everyone that what the bachur said was a profound insight. The bachur was embarrassed by the praise. When the bachur tried to protest the praise but that only increased the intensity of the praise. After everyone left, the bachur approached Rav Isser Zalman and asked why he praised him since he was only stating the position of the Shach regarding the discussion topic.  Rav Isser Zalman told him that he knew it was the view of the Shach. He explained that it was time for the bachur to find a shidduch and he wanted it know that he viewed the bachur as a serious talmid chachom.

Rav Zilberstein added that when Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach heard the story he noted that there was an additional aspect of Rav Isser Zalman’s greatness. Since it was clear to the other scholars that this was in fact the view of the Shach – Rav Isser Zalman had degraded himself by making a scene for the sake of the bachur and indicating he himself didn’t know this fact.

I also remember a similar episode when I was in yeshiva. 

There was a bachur who was smart but was very insecure and had low self-esteem issues. Once he made a comment retarding the gemora and the rebbe made a big fuss about what a fantastic chiddush the bachur made. The bachur told me afterwards that he was strongly embarrassed by the rebbe’s praise but it clearly indicated that he felt that the bachur was a nebach who needed to be praised and thus singled him out for this “positive” reinforcement.

My question is whether strong praise said with the intent of benefit - but which in fact causes embarrassment  – is it permitted or is it prohibited as emotional abuse?

Reality Check: A frum Jew is supposed to be a nice person

In the course of researching the issue of emotionally abusing others in the course of chastising sinners or chinuch of our children, it has become clear that we have lost sight of the forest because of the trees.

 In the concern for the dangers and challenges of our time i.e., divorce, shidduchim, pedophiles, Internet, off the derech children, drafting of yeshiva bochrim, an Israeli society which is fed up with the Chareidim etc etc - one point is missing from the discussion. In focusing on avoiding problems  - we curiously have lost sight of the obvious truth  that the goal of life is not about surviving challenges to the status quo. It is not about fighting for preserving a way of life that is about 50 years old. It is not about getting a child to be a caricature in an Artscroll biography.

The primarily accomplishment the Torah demands of us during our lifetimes is not the fact that we ban the internet, smartphones, newspapers, concerts, books, mixed seating on buses, immodest clothing or speaking with apikorsim. Kiddush HaShem is not primarily about learning Daf Yomi or attending mass rallies in sports stadium regading banning the Internet or joining a secular Israeli government while wearing a kippah.

We need to be asking outselves what we want to accomplish - as Jews. What type of people we should be and what we want our educational and social institutions to help our children develop into.  We need to be asking ourself - what does G-d demand of our existence?

The answer which Chazal  have given to this question - is somehow ignored. They say it is to be perceived as a nice person by all men - including the irreligious and non-Jews.  This idea of being a light to the nations seems to have been forgotten in our rush to establish ghettos to protect us from "them". The reflex explanation that predictably is offered when we are criticized - that it is the result anti-religious or anti-Charedi bias - is simply embarrassing in its stupidity and moral blindness. 

Let me offer a few citations to reinforce my point.

Berachos (17a): Abaye liked to say, A man should always be intelligent in his fear of Heaven as it says in Mishlei (15:1), A soft answer turns away wrath. He should always try to increase peace with his brothers and his relatives and with all man – even with the non‑Jew in the street. That is so he may be be beloved above and well liked below and be acceptable to all men. They say about Rav Yochanon ben Zakkai that no man ever gave him a greeting first – not even a non‑Jew in the market.

Avos (3:10): HE [ALSO] USED TO SAY: ANYONE FROM WHOM THE SPIRIT OF [HIS FELLOW-] CREATURES DERIVES SATISFACTION, FROM HIM THE SPIRIT OF THE ALL-PRESENT [TOO] DERIVES SATISFACTION.64 BUT ANYONE FROM WHOM THE SPIRIT OF [HIS FELLOW-] CREATURES DERIVES NO SATISFACTION, FROM HIM THE SPIRIT OF THE ALL-PRESENT [TOO] DERIVES NO SATISFACTION. 

Avos (6:1): Rabbi Meir said, Whoever involves himself in Torah study purely for its own sake, merits many things. This includes the fact that the entire world’s existence is worth while just for his sake. He is called companion of G‑d, beloved of G‑d, lover of G‑d, one who loves mankind, one who causes G‑d to rejoice, one who causes mankind to rejoice. Torah clothes him with humility and fear of G‑d. Torah prepares him to be able to be righteous, pious, upright and faithful. Torah keeps him far from sin and brings him to meritorious behavior. People benefit from his advice, solid understanding and strength... Torah gives him rule and dominion over others as well as the ability to investigate the appropriate law and reveals to him the secrets of Torah. His energy is like a spring that is constantly renewed and like a river that never dries up. As a result of his Torah studies he becomes modest, long-suffering and forgiving of those who insult him. His Torah study brings out his greatness and elevates him above all the other works of G‑d.

Avos (1:12): Hillel said, Be one of the students of Aaron and therefore love peace and pursue peace, love mankind and bring them close to Torah.

Vayikra Rabba (1:16): A rotting animal carcass is better then a talmid chachom lacking in da'as i.e., commonsense and social sensitivity. 

Yofe To'ar (Vayikra Rabbah 1:16): The term da'as is referring to social sensitivity. Therefore the medrash tells us that a disgusting  carcass is better them someone lacking social skills who is despised and rejected by other people. In addition such a talmid chachom degrades the Torah. While the stench of a rotting animal can be avoided by not coming near it, a person without social sensitivities goes everywhere even though he is not wanted Consequently it is impossible to escape from him and he is an unpleasant burden….

Matnas Kehuna(Vayikra Rabbah 1:16): Since this talmid chachom is lacking commonsense he contradicts and demeans G-d's Torah which is the foundation of the highest level of humanity can reach. Without Torah a person remains merely physical substance…He is worse than a dead animal…An alternative reading is found in Avos D'Rabbi Nossan where it says that a talmid chachom who has a high opinion of himself because of his Torah is like a dead animal lying on the roadside. Everyone passing by holds his nose and keeps his distance because of the stench.

Rav Chaim Vital (Sha'arei Kedusha fourth section): [explains how to attain prophesy]. The first requirement is to be a good person. He relates the following story, There was a man who was constantly fasting and also did many good deeds such as arranging for the weddings of many orphans. However he had a yearning for status and importance.  He went to a group of pious men who had reached the level of prophecy and said to their leader, "My master please show me favor by explaining why despite my many good deeds I have not attained prophecy as you have?" The leader replied, "Take a bag full of nuts and figs and hang it around your neck. Go to the main street of the city and gather a group of youths in the presence of the most distinguished citizens. You should say to the youths, 'Whoever wants to get the figs and nuts should come and slap me on the neck and face.' After you have done this many times you should return to me and I'll guide you to attaining Truth." The man replied, "How can such an important and distinguished person such as myself do such a thing?"  The leader replied, "You think I am asking such a big thing? This is the easiest path if you want to be able to comprehend the light of Truth." Immediately the man left feeling totally dejected.

Michtav M'Eliyahu(vol 3 page 291): Rav Chaim Vital said, "Torah without being a good person is comparable to a pig wearing a gold ring in its nose". Rav Simcha Zissel raises the question that since the Gra said that Torah is a cure for a bad personality so how could there a talmid chachom who is not a good person? Rav Simcha Zissel answers that only a person who learns Torah from a pure love of Torah has his personality perfected by Torah study.

Rambam(Hilchos De’os 5:7): A talmid chachom should not yell and scream like an animal when he is speaking. He should not even raise his voice more than necessary but rather should speak calmly with all people. But when he is speaking calmly he should not go to the extreme that he appears to be a conceited person. Furthermore he should greet everyone first so that people like him. He should give everyone the benefit of the doubt and praise others and not despise them at all. He should love peace and actively purse it. If he thinks that his comments will be  effective then he should speak but otherwise he remains silent. For example he should not try to placate a person when he is angry and won’t listen to him. He should not suggest that a person retract his oath when he makes it but should wait until the person has calmed down and will listen to reason. He should not try comforting a mourner while the dead is lying before him because he is too upset until the deceased is buried. He should not add or subtract from that which brings about peace or similar positive things. The general rule is that a person should only speak words of wisdom or kindness or similar things. In addition he should not speak with a woman in the market – even if it is his own wife or sister or daughter.

R' Herzfeld's "heter" to publicly embarrass Aaron Friedman

In the course of investigating the question of using emotional abuse for educational purposes and chastisement, I came across this essay on the internet by Rabbi Shmuel Herzfeld. Besides directly addressing the issue - it also involves an issue which has been hotly debated on this blog - the demands of Tamar Epstein that her husband Aaron Friedman give her a Get. It is important to note that Rabbi Herzfeld nowhere establishes that a man whose wife demands a Get - simply because she doesn't want to be married to him - has a right to a Get. This case apparently does not even have the status  ma'os alei (the thought of being with him disgusts me) and therefore according to the vast majority of poskim there is absolutely no obligation for the husband to give a Get and surely no one has the right to pressure him. According to the traditional understanding of these issues she does not even have the status of Aguna.  In spite of this failure of showing the applicability of his halachic analysis and source to the Friedman Epstein case he asserts : "So from the perspective of Jewish law the matter is clear: If a person is not giving his wife a Get and is using it as leverage, one can (and depending on the circumstances, should) embarrass him publicly even to the point of threatening his livelihood. "His quote from Rav Herschel Schachter is likewise problematic. He has posted the full letter on the interenet here - When is it permitted to publicly embarrass someone publicly?   I have provided links to other examples of his thinking here: Open Letter to House Ethics Committe against Aaron Friedman          Why being gay is not immoral  Why boss has right to fire him for not giving get

=================================================page 4 & 5

And yet, all this being the case the rabbis tell us that under certain conditions one must embarrass another person publicly. [...]

In other words, the Sefer Hachinuch draws a distinction between a personal sin where one should refrain from embarrassing a person, and a sin between man and God where one is obligated to embarrass the sinner.[...]

The Minchat Chinuch comments on this as follows:

“The distinction that Maimonides and Sefer Hachinuch draw between sins against a fellow man and –where it is prohibited to embarrass and shame someone publicly—and between sins between man and God—where we do shame people publicly—is specifically between two people.  That is if one sins against another person, then the person who is wronged should not embarrass the other person publicly, as it is better for him to forgive the sin.  However (when a third party is involved) if one sees that a member of the community is sinning by hurting another person then one may shame him.  Indeed the prophets used to shame people publicly for sins that were committed against fellow men.  The books of the prophets are filled with these examples.  It is just the wronged person himself who is prohibited to shame the other person and who is encouraged to forgive.”

In other words the Minchat Chinuch is teaching us that if we are a third party that is witness to a wrong being done against a person the laws of embarrassing someone publicly do not apply.

Now we must be very, very careful before applying these laws and acting upon them.  The potential for a misreading of the law, of the situation and of our own intentions is very great.  And of course, the potential damage to another and to our own spiritual well being is enormous and should cause us to shudder in fear before intentionally embarrassing someone in public.  

However, at times we are compelled to do so.There is a biblical injunction “lo taamod al dam rei-ekhah,” do not stand by the blood of your brother.  This injunction requires us to not be passive bystanders in the world.  When a person is being hurt or attacked, if we say, “we will sit this one out; it doesn’t affect me personally,” then we are directly violating a biblical commandment.

And while this injunction is true in general it is even truer as it relates specifically to a Get.

Recently the following question was posed to the Erz Hemdah Institute, a scholarly academy in the land of Israel.  Someone asked about a man who was not giving his wife a Get and was then being shunned by the rabbi.  The questioner wrote: 

“I question whether our rabbi has the halachic right to treat him so harshly.” 

This was the answer of the Erez Hemda Institute(Living the Halachic Process, 2007):  “One of the people who we are most required to help…is an aguna.  At different times and place in history, religious courts had the ability to physically coerce a stubborn husband to give a get, when a get was mandated in the most clear-cut manner…In cases that are a little less clear-cut a harchaka d’Rabbeinu Tam can be employed.  This is a painful form of publicly shunning the husband, not only in shul but also in commercial and public settings.”

This position is codified in the Rema’s gloss on the Shulchan Aruch where he writes (Even Ha-Ezer 154): “In any circumstance where we cannot force the husband to give Get by beating him or excommunicating him, we can nevertheless tell people not to do business with him or to do any favor for him in the world (she lo laasot lo shum tovah or lisah ve-litten immo).

So from the perspective of Jewish law the matter is clear: If a person is not giving his wife a Get and is using it as leverage, one can (and depending on the circumstances, should) embarrass him publicly even to the point of threatening his livelihood.  

While this is never a pleasant thing to do; it is also not pleasant to live with the pain of not being able to remarry or go out on a date by virtue of the fact that you are being chained to a recalcitrant spouse.

Although, the halacha is clear I still felt trepidation in this area.  Perhaps I was misreading the sources or perhaps there were other factors that I did not consider.  So I personally discussed this case with Rav Hershel Schachter, a leading authority at Yeshiva University, who is directly involved in this exact case.  He encouraged me to continue on this path.  I specifically asked Rav Schachter if I should let all of Aharon’s colleagues on the Hill know about his behavior and he said, “yes.”

Subsequent to our conversation, Rav Schachter wrote a psak on this matter where he wrote: “Limnoa mei-habaal she-lo ye-agen et ishto—inyan zeh eino tzarikh pesak beit din, upeshita desaggi behoraat chacham, to work to prevent the husband from chaining his wife—this matter does not require a ruling from a Beit Din, and it is obvious that all that is required is a ruling from a single Torah scholar.”  He further noted that the great Rabbi Akiva Eiger also ruled that if we know a man is planning on making his wife an Agunah we can even throw him into jail on the Shabbat itself.  So in this case specifically it is appropriate to convince Aharon to give a Get.

The Halakhah on this matter is clear: Aharon should give the Get immediately and not hold it as leverage.  Until he does that it is permissible to embarrass him into doing so.

Of course, at the end of the day it is not just Aharon who is embarrassed publicly.  The New York Times article did not just embarrass Aharon, it also embarrassed the Torah; it is a Chilul Hashem to see such behavior being conducted under the auspices of the Torah.

But that is not the fault of the New York Times.  That is the fault of our own community for not being strong enough in this area.  

Aharon still has many supporters who are encouraging him in his recalcitrance either explicitly or implicitly through smoke screens and redirected, irrelevant complaints about his ex-wife.  And so Tamar Epstein’s status as an Agunah continues, and for that we should all be embarrassed.

Verbal abuse is prohibited only if the person is helpless

updated Feb 11: This Chinuch says 1) that verbal abuse is only prohibited for those things for which a person is vulnerable and can't protect himself. It is not clear why he adds that phrase since it should be sufficient to say that it is prohibited to cause pain to others. [This is also mentioned by Shevet HaLevi (8:309.5): Thelanguage of the Chinuch (#338) is that “one should not say to a Jew words which cause him pain and anguish and that he doesn’t have the ability to defend himself against them.” There is some implication in this that if the person does have the power to defend himself against these words - then there is no Torah prohibition against them. Perhaps that means that if in most cases the words don’t cause hurt and anguish – they would be permitted according to the Torah. However not all cases are identical in this matter.] 2) Then he says the basis of this mitzva is that disputes are bad. However this is not the same thing as saying that hurting people is wrong. 3) He then says that the prohibition is only for frum people and thus not prohibited against children except as an act of piety. If we are prohibited to hurt someone why should it make a difference who the person is? [See Minchas Chinuch] 4) He also says that he assumes that a person has the right to defend himself against insults and learns this from the law of rodef. Why isn't this explicitly taught in the Talmud? The case of rodef is explicitly only dealing with a threat to life - not to dignity. 5) Finally he underminds the assertion that there is a right to self-defense against insult by saying our Sages said that ideally one should not respond to insult.

Chinuch(#338): It is prohibited to verbally torment any Jew. In other words it is prohibited to say to a Jew any words that cause him pains and torments him and he has no power to help himself. This is explicitly stated in Bava Metzia (58b): What is prohibited? If he is a baal teshuva you should not say to him, “Remember your old deeds.” If a person is seriously ill you should not speak to him in the manner that Job’s comrades spoke to him saying that the illness was obviously because he had sinned. If you see a donkey driver who is looking for grain you should not give him advice to go to a certain person when you know that he doesn’t sell grain. You should also not ask a merchant for the price of an object when you have no intent of purchasing it. All these actions are included in the prohibition of Vayikra (25:17), A person should not torment his people.

The essence of this mitzva is obvious. It is to prove peace in society. Peace is critically important in order for blessing to exist in the world while disputes and conflict are harmful. There are man curses and impediments that are the result of disputes.

Concerning the details of this mitzva there are a number of prohibitions and many cautions which our Sages have warned use in this matter to avoid causing pain to others in any way and not to embarrass them. They were very concerned about this prohibition as can be seen from the fact that they said that one should not examine merchandise if they don’t have money to buy it.

It is proper to be careful that not even an inference can be made from your words that would insult another. That is because the Torah has placed great emphasis that one should not verbally hurt others since this is something very harmful to the hearts of people. In fact there are many people who care more about being hurt verbally than being harmed monetarily. Our Sages say that wronging another with words is worse than harming them financially since only in the prohibition of  verbal tormenting does the Torah say  “and you shall fear your G‑d” (Vayikra 25:17). 

It is not possible to write all the cases of verbal abuse which cause pain to people. However everyone is required to avoid verbally paining other according to what he sees. That is because G‑d knows all of a man’s actions and everything which he intends because man only knows the externals which he can see while G‑d sees what is in the heart. [Shmuel I 16:7] Our Sages have written many medrashim to teach us the correct way to act. The main description of this law is in the fourth chapter of Bava Metzia.

The mitzva is applicable in all places and all times and applies equally to men and women. And even with children it is proper to be careful not to pain them with words too much – except in that which is greatly needed to teach them proper behavior. Even for a man’s own sons and daughters and household members. He who is gentle with them so as not to cause them anguish in these matters will find a life, blessing and honor. On the other hand if he transgresses this prohibition there is no punishment of flogging because there is no physical action. Nonetheless he should realize how many lashes can be administered without a physical whip by G‑d who commanded this mitzva.

However it would seem that despite the fact that verbal abuse of others is prohibited, one should not conclude that if one Jew came and wickedly verbally inflicted pain on another Jew that the victim should not answer him. That is because it is impossible that a person should be like a stone which has no one to turn it over. Furthermore if the victim remains silent it would imply that he agrees with the insults. In truth the Torah does not command that a man be like a stone which remains silent in the face of those who insult him as he would in the face of those who bless him. Rather the Torah commands us to stay far away from this type of behavior and not to initiate quarrels and insult people. If he is not a quarrelsome person he will be saved from insults. That is because one who doesn’t get into fights is generally not insulted by others except by total fools - and one should not pay attention to fools.

And if perhaps a slanderer will force us to reply to his words, it is proper for a wise man to reply to him in  dignified and pleasant manner and not to get very angry. That is because anger dwells in the bosom of a fools (Koheles 7:9). He should excuse himself to those who hear the slander about him and place the burden on the slanderer. This is the way the refined people in society conduct themselves.

We learn that it is permitted to answer a fool apparently from the fact that a person is permitted to kill a robber who has broken into his home. That is because there is absolutely no doubt that a person is not obligated to tolerate harm from another but rather has the right to defend himself. Likewise concerning verbal abuse which contains cunning and deceit, he is permitted to save himself with every manner with which it is necessary to save himself.

Nevertheless there are certain people whose piety is so elevated that they would not want to accept this ruling that one can respond to someone who is verbally abusing them. That is because they are afraid that they might become angry and would over respond to the abuser. Concerning these pious people our Sages (Shabbos 88b) said, “They are insulted but they do not respond with humiliation. They hear themselves being disgraced and yet don’t reply. Concerning them it is written in Shoftim (5:31), And those that love You, are like the sun going forth in its might.”