Torah Psychotherapy: Learned from Torah or doesn't violate Torah?

 Update:8/18/13 I'd like to summarize what I understand Ploni is suggesting regarding developing a Torah therapy. 1) It is desirable to have psychotherapy based upon the insights of those who contributed to our Mesorah instead of either a purely secular therapy or one that the therapist hopefully selects elements that are compatible with  Torah and avoids those elements which are against the Torah. 2) There is also at the present no clear guidelines for the goals of therapy. Ploni is suggesting that we identify Torah appropriate goals and avoid inappropriate goals. 3) Before a true  Torah therapy is developed it is important that there be some official psak as to what secular therapy is appropriate for use with frum Jews.  4) Therapy needs on going rabbinic supervision as well a prescreening by rabbis.
My simple response to this is a practical one. I don't think it is feasible because it is essential creating mashgichim for therapy. In Ploni's future I can see that we have Bedatz therapy and therapists and OU therapy and therapists. Who are these mashgichim going to be? By and large rabbonim who don't understand therapy - but think they do. So why should they supervise it? In addition it would seem that each client would need not only to find a therapist but also a rabbinic supervisor to assure that therapy is going on in line with rabbinic approval. I find this rather intrusive and counterproductive as well as cumbersome. An alternative would be that only rabbis would be allowed to be therapists. This also is not a good idea because many talented therapists are not capable of learning properly while many Torah giants would simply relate to a client as they do a shtender. We see how child abuse has been handled with rabbinic supervision and I don't have reason to think therapy would be handled any better. I find the idea of total rabbinic supervision rather depressing. Furthermore while I think theoretically it is possible to build a Torah therapy, I am not convinced that a Torah therapy would actually work better than a selective use of secular therapy or developing new neutral techniques which don't claim roots in halacha or hashkofa.
 =============================
There have been a number of heated discussion about the issue of Torah psychotherapy. Part of the problem is clearly defining what is meant. Equally important is whether the "Torah therapy" is actually derived from Torah sources in the Hirschian sense - or whether they are simply translation of secular language and metaphors into Torah terms? In other words, does the Torah define what a good marriage or child rearing is - or are secular standards used and Torah is simply used as a tool. Does Torah prescribe ways to reduce anxiety or become more sociable or outgoing  - or is it derived from Dale Carnegie or Freud?
Update: See additional discussion about frum self-help books

Update: This is more than an academic question. A friend was informed by an activist in a major Torah community that 50% of community charity monies are now going to provide psychotherapy. Most of it was spent on frum therapists who had received at most a years training in a frum therapy program. The askan was not only upset about the amount of money being spent but he said he had no idea of whether the therapists were competent and had no way of determining whether the money was being well spent.

Update 8/14/13 If in fact the therapy is truly Torah therapy - then it would seem that there could be no excuse to use secular therapy. However problems clearly exist when Torah principles of what constitutes proper education or the ideal marriage clearly are inconsistent - not only with modern secular values but also that of the vast majority of Orthodox Jews. 
================================================
Conclusion - Update 8/16/13 It is apparent from the comments to this post is that there is no such thing as Torah Psychology or Torah Therapy that was given at Sinai. There are psychological insights which are found in our Tradition which can be used in therapy - but they don't constitue a program of therapy. A psychology or therapy based primarily or exclusive on Torah sources might be desirable - but it doesn't exist at present and it clearly is not part of our Tradition from Sinai.

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

There are a number of possibilities. 

1) Mental health achieved by prescribing Torah activities.  A person with low self esteem might be told to make a siyum to build his self esteem. A person who is shy, might be encouraged to do chesed to be less self-conscious. A man who has anxiety and depression by being in an adulterous relationship with another man's wife is told to stop sinning and do teshuva. A person might be told to pray at the graves of great tzadikim.

2) Therapy done by a rabbi or rebbetzin.  Some believe that any therapeutic technique that is done by a religious authority is Torah therapy. This may or may not include using religious language and examples. Thus there is absolutely no difference in the technique - only the person doing the therapy. An example is Rav Yitzchok Zilberstein's declaration that while psychologists have techniques for evaluating whether a person is a pedophile or child molester - only a talmid chachom actually knows.

3) Traditional secular psychotherapy techniques that don't violate halacha OR HASHKAFA [Ploni's correction]. A secular therapist once told me that the cure for the depression for his  yeshiva bachur client - was to get a girl from and engage in sexual relations. Obviously this was not acceptable. Another example is that some therapy is predicated about speaking lashon harah about parents and friends. A Torah therapy would seek a cure without using such techniques if at all possible.

4) Techniques developed from classic Jewish sources such as mussar or chassidic writings- without reference to secular sources. These typically involve using a conceptual framework of spirituality that if found in seforim such as Mesilas Yeshorim- often kabbalistic ideas are utilized.. No reference is made to secular psychology at all. However a secular therapist will typically recognize these techniques as variations of secular therapy.

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

Thus ultimately the question is whether there is an inherent Torah approach to curing mental health problems. To answer this question it should be sufficient to observe whether great Torah scholars are also great therapists? I personally think the answer is no. Rav Moshe Feinstein is quoted in the introduction to the 8th volume of the Igros Moshe that being a gadol in Torah doesn't make one a successful politician or provide other wisdoms. Gedolim typically tell people with psychological problems to go the therapists. It is really no different than a medical problem. While there clearly are rabbis who have an innate talent for therapy - it doesn't seem that this is the result of studying Torah. There are in fact wise people from all sorts of backgrounds who are able to give therapeutic advice and direction.

A corollary of this answer that there is no inherent Torah therapy is the reality that advice from rabbis is not beyond question. One rosh yeshiva told me about a friend of his who was having marriage problems. He said it was obvious that the couple should never have gotten married. However since he was a student of Rav Moshe Feinstein he went and asked for advice. Rav Moshe told him emphatically that he should remain married. The man suffered for 5 more years and finally couldn't take it any more and got divorced. The rosh yeshiva - who was close with Rav Moshe - said his friend wasted 5 years of his life.  I have heard this regarding other gedolim such as Rav Steinman. Rabbis - even amongst the greatest - are known to have bad marriages or messed up children. This is readily stated in the Talmud.

Update 8/15/13 From Rav Wolbe's article on Psychiatry and Religion it is clear that there is no independent Jewish psychology or psychotherapy given at Sinai - but psychology which has been adapted or filtered to be appropriate for a religious Jews. this is from page 77.

היחס של היהדות הדתית אל הטיפול הפסיכיאטרי.

ידוע הוא יחס התורה של חכמת הרפואה בכללה: הרשות ניתנה לרופא לרפא - "ורפוא ירפא" כתיב  - וחיוב מוטל על האדם:

"ונשמרתם מאד לנפשותינם"  ~. ויש מרבותינו הסוברים כי פקודתו של רופא יש לה דין של "מצוה מדאורייתא" בכל החומרות שלה. והי' צריך להיות מובן מאליו, כי לפסיכיאטרי' מגיע אותן מעמד כמו לשאר ענפי הרפואה. הרי דבר פשוט הוא: כל הפרעה רצינית, אם נוירוטית אם פסיכוטית, צריכה לבוא בהקדם האפשרי לאבחנה פסיכאטרית ולטיפול מתאים. למרבה הצער, האמת הפשוטה הזאת אינה נחלת הציבור הרחב, וזאת משתי סיבות: נפוצים משפטים קדומים בכל הקשור למחלות-נפש, וגם שוררת אי-ידיעה ככל השייך לתחום זה.

ישנם משפטים קדומים רבים בענין, הראשון - המחריד ביותר: יש החושבים, כי חולה-נפש מהווה כתם על המשפחה כולה. בעיני ראיתי, איך משפחה טובה מאד התכחשה לבן יקר שיצופרני; בתחילה התכחשה לאבחנה. אחר-כן. עם התקדמות המחלה, התעלמה מהחולה עצמו, שעזב את הבית והתגלגל במסדרון של איזה מוסד בחוסר כל ובלי שום טיפול. כמוכן, כל מי שיש לו השפעה על משפחות החולים, חייב ללחוץ על המשפחה שיביאו את החולה לטיפול פסיכיאטרי, ובהקדם! - משפט קדום שני מכוון נגד האישפוז: על מי שהי' מאושפז פעם, מוטבעת גושפנקא של "אינו מן הישוב", וזה מערים קשיים על עתידו אפילו אם הבריא לגמרי. עוד זאת חוששים קרובי החולה, שהאישפוז עצמו יגרום הרעה במצב החולה. גם בזה יש צורך בהסברה לציבור הרחב, כי הרופאים מודעים לאפשרות זאת, והם עושים כל אשר ביכולתם למנוע אישפוז מיותר. רצוי שהציבוו ידע, כי היום עומדות לרשות הפסיכיאטרים תרופות חדישות שחוללו מהפכה בטיפול במחלות פסיכוטיות. [...]

בעיות אלו משותפות לציבור הדתי ולפסיכיאטרים. יש צורך דחוף בארגון קורסים לרבנים בפועל ולמחננים, במטרה להפיץ ידע בסיסי על הסימפטונים של נוירוזה ןפסיכוזה ודרכי הטיפול שלהן בקווים כלליים, כדי שידעו להפנות חולים בהקדם אל הרופא. ידיעה בסיסית היתה מסלקת הרבה משפטים קדומים!

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)."