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.”

Verbal abusers mistakenly feel superior to Jewish victim - Alshech

The Alshech gets into the theology/psychology of the prohibition against verbal abuse. He notes that one does not torment another person unless the other is viewed as being inferior. He explains that that is why the prohibition describes the other as being "with him".  He also notes that we have no way of knowing who is superior or inferior in this world - it will only be revealed in the World to Come. He thus advises to always view others as superior. He also states this is not a prohibition against abusing a person but to prevent abuse against G-d since the soul of people is part of G-d.

Alshech (Vayikra 25:17): Our Sages (Bava Metzia 58b) understood this verse to be referring to the prohibition of hurting others with words. For example not to tell a baal teshuva, “remember your previous deeds.” Or to tell a person suffering from illness that if he was truly righteous he wouldn’t be sick. The attribution of our Sages of this verse to verbal abuse and the previous verse (Vayikra 25:14) to deception with land – solves the question about why there are two verses dealing with deception. ... 

As regards the literal meaning of the verse, it cautions not to torment another person with words. The person who is being cautioned views himself as man who is as important as all other men or as the men in the Bible - in contrast to the other man who he is ridiculing and embarrassing and tormenting with words. The Torah says that when you abuse others you view yourself as a greater tzadik than he and you deserve being able to call to the L‑rd your G‑d - but in fact you are mistaken. That is what is meant by, “And don’t abuse your fellow man...” You should not view yourself as important but not the other person. In fact however relative to Me your fellow and comrade is a man who is equal to you in value. That is the meaning of do not abuse “a man and his fellow” in this verse. Because if you consider the other as your fellow (amiso) that means that you view him as equal to you. However if you mistakenly view that you have a closer relations to G‑d – you will find that is not so. That is because He is as much your G‑d as He is his G‑d. Which mortal man can know who is better before G‑d – this one or that one or whether both are equally good?

Another issue is that the verse seems to be prohibiting verbally tormenting another because it degrades the honor of his fellow man. But that can’t be the correct understanding because the verse ends with the statement that “you should fear G‑d.” That indicates that verbally abusing another is prohibited because degrading the honor of men degrades G‑d’s honor. That is because G‑d is in fact the G‑d of both of them - because his fellow’s soul is a part of G‑d just as his soul is. Thus G‑d is saying, You are degrading that aspect of your fellow man which is part of Me and therefore you are despising Me since I am as much your G‑d as I am his. This is an important lesson. A person should not view himself as better than another as it says in Job (3:19), The small and great are there and the servant is free from his master.  This lesson is also expressed in Pesachim (50a) where it says that we live in an upside down world. That which is actually superior is viewed as lowly and that which is actually lowly is viewed as superior. That means that the true importance of things will only become apparent in the World to Come. Because G‑d alone knows everyone’s true status and only there will He reveal every man’s correct position.  This is the meaning of Job (3:19), The small and great are there and the servant is free from his master.  In other words whether a person is small in value or great will only be seen in the World to Come. In contrast in this world there is no way to know who is superior and who is inferior. We will also find in the World to Come that a servant who is more free (i.e. superior) than his master because he is judged by his deeds. That is the implication of the mem (“from his master” in Job 3:19). This is also implied in Esther (1:19), “And let the king give her royal position to another who is better than she.” Thus friends find praiseworthy and look up to one of the perfected men who never met a man that he didn’t honor and didn’t view as better than him. The reasoning behind this is that if the other is younger than me that means he must have committed less sins. If he is older than me then that means he has accomplished more. If he is more knowledgeable than me then he has more merit. If I am more knowledgeable, I view that I have done more things wrong then he since he has less awareness then I regarding sin. This approach of seeing that all men are superior to you can be extended to all aspects of a person.

Therefore Rabbi Levitas of Yavneh has noted that our Sages (Avos 4:4) warned, Be exceeding careful to be humble before every person since the hope of man is  worms. Therefore a man you view all others as being better than he is as we mentioned. This is the opposite attitude of one who verbally torments others. According to our approach we need to examine why this statement in Avos (4:4) said m’od m’od (exceedingly). Also we need to examine why it says that the “hope of man is worms?” The term “hope” is only correctly applied to that which a person hopes and longs for. What kind of man desires worms? It should have simply said that end of man is worms. Furthermore why is the term man enosh instead of adam or ish?

Now we know that for personality traits there is nothing better than moderation and therefore the avoidance of extremes is preferred by intelligent people. Thus it is reasonable to assume that this is  also true for the attribute of humility. However this conclusion is contrary to what we find in the Torah which states (Bamidbar 12:3) , “The man Moshe was very humble from all mankind.” Consequently it is important to investigate why G‑d chose the extreme trait to praise Moshe? Rabbi Levitas apparently understood the expression m’od m’od (exceedingly) to mean the strongest degree possible of humility. Don’t raise an objection from moderation because we see that our Sages said the hope of man is worm. Because what the Sages meant was that a person should desire to be a worm. The term m’od m’od is applied not only to humility but also to how insignificant he is.

We know that there are a number of words that refer to man  - ish, gever, enosh and the most lowly description is enosh. It is only used to describe a person who is not good as is well known. There is also no more negative attribute describing a person than conceit. We see that the most negative characteristic of man (Tehilim 101:5) e.g., the one which most conflicts with G‑d - is pride. G‑d says that He can not exist together in the world with a person who is conceited (Sotah 5a). If so than this is the description of man as enosh. Therefore our Sages tell us that we need to be humble because if we aren’t humble then we will eventually become the type of man called enosh and not one of the others. If you become man as enosh  - then you will desire and hope for the worm. We know that a person who is totally not good and is described as enosh  will not be able to find peace after death until his flesh decays in his grave. Therefore before the worm start to come to him he will strongly desire and hope when will the worm come to him and consume his flesh in order that he finds peace.

Emotional abuse in Jewish sources I: Reish Lakish

In order to understand the issue of emotional abuse - and how to respond and innoculate for it, it is also necessary to see examples of abuse and how it was dealt with in Jewish sources. This is the first of a series. I would appreciate your respectful comments.

A classic case is the relationship between Reish Lakish and his rebbe Rav Yochanon. The gemora relates how Rav Yochanon saved Reish Lakish from being a bandit leader and made him into an outstanding talmid chachom. They became study parters and their debates are cited frequently in the Talmud.  However we see that Rav Yochachon also destroyed Reish Lakish and this ultimately brought about his own death.

Bava Metzia (84a): One day R. Johanan was bathing in the Jordan, when Resh Lakish saw him and leapt into the Jordan after him. Said he [R. Johanan] to him, ‘Your strength should be for the Torah.’ — ‘Your beauty,’ he replied, ‘should be for women.’ ‘If you will repent,’ said he, ‘I will give you my sister [in marriage], who is more beautiful than I.’ He undertook [to repent]; then he wished to return and collect his weapons, but could not. Subsequently, [R. Johanan] taught him Bible and Mishnah, and made him into a great man. Now, one day there was a dispute in the schoolhouse [with respect to the following. Viz.,] a sword, knife, dagger, spear, hand-saw and a scythe — at what stage [of their manufacture] can they become unclean? When their manufacture is finished. And when is their manufacture finished? — R. Johanan ruled: When they are tempered in a furnace. Resh Lakish maintained: When they have been furbished in water. Said he to him: ‘A robber understands his trade.’16 Said he to him, ‘And wherewith have you benefited me: there [as a robber] I was called Master, and here I am called Master.’ ‘By bringing you under the wings of the Shechinah,’ he retorted. R. Johanan therefore felt himself deeply hurt, [as a result of which] Resh Lakish fell ill. His sister [sc. R. Johanan's, the wife of Resh Lakish] came and wept before him: ‘Forgive him for the sake of my son,’ she pleaded. He replied: ‘Leave thy fatherless children. I will preserve them alive. ‘For the sake of my widowhood then!’ ‘And let thy widows trust in me,’ he assured her. Resh Lakish died, and R. Johanan was plunged into deep grief. Said the Rabbis, ‘Who shall go to ease his mind? Let R. Eleazar b. Pedath go, whose disquisitions are very subtle.’ So he went and sat before him; and on every dictum uttered by R. Johanan he observed: ‘There is a Baraitha which Supports you.’ ‘Are you as the son of Lakisha?’ he complained: ‘when I stated a law, the son of Lakisha used to raise twenty-four objections, to which I gave twenty-four answers, which consequently led to a fuller comprehension of the law; whilst you say, "A Baraitha has been taught which supports you:" do I not know myself that my dicta are right?’ Thus he went on rending his garments and weeping, ‘Where are you, O son of Lakisha, where are you, O son of Lakisha;’ and he cried thus until his mind was turned. Thereupon the Rabbis prayed for him, and he died.
 =========================Explanation ============================
Etz Yosef: (Bava Metzia 84a): [Rabbi Yochanon said]a robber understands his trade - because when Reish Lakish was a thief he saw that the shine on the sword was the final stage of its processing. That is because a sword in the hand of thieves serves to intimidate and frighten the victim so he shouldn’t resist and therefore it is the shine on the sword which intimidates and frightens. Rabbi Yochanon did not intend with this statement to insult Reish Lakish and to remind him of his past. Rabbi Yochanon simply mentioned this to the students of the yeshiva   to explain why Reish Lakish’s view was correct since he had more experience in these matters then Rabbi Yochanon did. However Reish Lakish thought that Rabbi Yochanon intended to torment him and to insult him by saying that since he was a thief he was an expert about the tools used by thieves. As a result of the mistaken perception of an insult Reish Lakish replied, “Why do you insult me?” In other words he used the word hona’ah - the word used in the Torah prohibition against tormenting and insulting others. He thus stated, “Why are you verbally abusing me because even when I was a thief I was given respect that is as great as I get now as a talmid chachom. Because even then I was called master (rabbi) of the thieves as I am called master (rabbi) of the yeshiva. The reason that I repented my evil ways was not because of honor but for the sake of Heaven. Therefore it is prohibited for you to speak this way to me and mention my past deeds to me.” Unfortunately Rabbi Yochanon misunderstood his words and though he was saying, “What benefit (hana’ah) have you provided me.... That is why Rabbi Yochanon replied, “The pleasure that I provided you is the fact I brought you under the wings of the Divine Presence (i.e., observe the Torah). Thus Rabbi Yochanon was upset when he thought he heard Reish Lakish say “what benefit have you given me” (when he actually said, “Why are you verbally abusing me.”) That is because saying “what benefit have you given me” indicated that Reish Lakish didn’t value Torah or the fact that he had been brought under the wings of the Divine Presence.

Gittin (90a): What is pritzus for wife - Different views

Gittin (90a): It was taught: Rabbi Meir used to say, Just as there are different views regarding food so there are regarding treatment of their wives. For example there are men that if a fly fell into their cup there would remove the fly but not drink from it. This was the attitude of Papus ben Yehudah who used to lock his wife in the house before leaving it. There are other men that if a fly fell into their cup they would remove the fly and then drink from the cup. This is the normal attitude of most men who do not mind if their wife talks with her brothers and relatives. However there are men that if a fly fell in their soup would squash it and eat it. This is the conduct of an evil man [who is not bothered] when he sees his wife go out with her hair unfastened and weave cloth in public with her with her armpits uncovered and bathe with men. Does she literally bathe with men? [No!] Rather it means that she bathes in the same place as the men. If she acts in this manner then it is a mitzva from the Torah to divorce her as Devarim (24:1) says, And he found something disgusting about her (ervas davar) and he divorces her and sends her from his house and she marries another man.

Rashi (Gittin 90a): Just as there are different attitudes towards food - people have different attitudes in their sensitivity to food and drink. There are people who are delicate and are disgusted with their food because of some very minor issue and there are others who are not so delicate. There are also those who aren’t bothered by any disgusting thing that happens to their food. In a similar manner we find differences of attitudes towards the lack of modesty in one’s wife.. There are those who do not tolerate the slightest degree of immodesty (pritzus) and there are those who are not so strict while others are not concerned with her immodesty at all. Papus ben Yehuda, the husband of Miriam Magdela, when he left his house he would lock her in the house so that she would not speak to any man. This attitude is not acceptable as we see that it caused hatred between them and she ended up committing adultery.

Emotional abuse: Producing overly fragile children

One of the consequences of my recently being threatened by criminal charges if I didn't remove certain postings - was that I was directed to someone who has much experience dealing with the Israeli police. After this askan gave me some good advice, the conversation turned to identifying the important concerns of our society. He said after I had already written a book on the topic of sexual abuse - he felt that the next major issue I should address is emotional abuse. He deals with children who go off the derech in the chareidi society in Israel. He said while there definitely are abusive parents - his main concern was the abuse that occurs in the school system - especially from well meaning staff that are not properly trained and who fail to treat the students with proper respect and dignity.

I have discussed this with a number of other people since and they agree that this is an important issue to clarify and try and correct. Consequently I have added this on to my daily research and writing as well as discussions with Dr  Shulem. Hopefully in a year or two I will have book on the subject.

My preliminary research however indicates that it is not simply that there are adults who are causing emotional damage to children. It is clear that in the last 10 years - there has been a tremendous reorientation in society in the direction of protecting children from upset and failure. There are psychologists and social workers everywhere who are pointing out how the children are being hurt and how we must change the nature of society to prevent that hurt.

What seems to lost in the mad rush not to cause pain - is that the children are being made more vulnerable to pain and that people are viewing a pain free existence as an entitlement.

So in addition to investigating what is the dynamic of abuse. I am also investigating the question of this change in attitude of society - even the traditional chareidi society - towards removing all unpleasant experiences and not exposing a child to failure or trauma of any sort.

This issue was recently raised by the Rabbi Manis Friedman tapes about abuse. Rabbi Manis is clearly a caring individual - but he was saying that we need to get past the abuse. The victim needs to be concerned about the future not the pain of the past. Even though I didn't like the way he said it - he was correct. 

There is much evidence that therapy for trauma does not help and in fact exacerbates the trauma by constantly focusing on it. There is much evidence that perhaps 50% of people are not seriously traumatized by horrific experiences. This observation led Dr. Viktor Frankl to develop logotherapy.

In short, we have two ways to approach emotional trauma. We can search ways to remove trauma from our children's lifes or we can teach them to deal with trauma and failure as part of normal existence. In other words we can either bullet proof our children or we can try and create a trauma free environment.

Rav Sternbuch: Child's education vs honoring father?

Rav Sternbuch (Teshuvos v' Hanhagos 2:449): Question: A son wants to move to Israel but this will be detrimental to his father and he will lose the mitzva of honoring his parents. Answer: The mitzva of settling Israel is a dispute among poskim. Even though it is clearly a mitzva to dwell in the holy land of Israel, nevertheless some say it is only when the person is able to experience the holiness and thus is elevated by the experience. However someone who is not assured of spiritual elevation but just wants to go to Israel to be free of the burden of golus   - then going to Israel is not considered a mitzva according to this view. [see what I wrote in Teshuvos v' Hanhagos (1:900). However concerning the present case, we see in Kiddushin (31b) that living in Israel seems to be equal to the mitzva of honoring parents. In this case where the son is actively involved in honoring his father and wants to move to Israel - perhaps it is not correct because of the principle that one who is involved in doing a mitzva is exempt from doing another and thus it would be prohibited for him to leave his father. Furthermore in the present case where he already is involved in the mitzva of honoring his father he should continue doing it and therefore it would be prohibited for him to move to Israel and to stop the mitzva that he has already started.

However if he claims that in Israel he will be able to better raise his children in Torah then since there is nothing comparable to the mitzva of education children - then it would take precedence over honoring his parents. That is the Torah law because nothing is comparable to the education of children because their entire future is dependent upon it.

Therefore it is necessary to carefully investigate whether the parents truly need his help. In such a case it would be prohibited to leave them and stop the mitzva of honoring parents. It would be  prohibited in such a case to stop the mitzva for the sake of living in Israel. However if he must settle in Israel for the sake of educating his children - then he should definitely move because the mitzva of educating his children takes precedence because there is nothing comparable to it. In particular here in South Africa where the Chareidi education for either boys or girls is not as good as what he can get in Israel in the religious communities. (Look at V'Yoel Moshe of the Satmar Rebbe where he says astounding things in the name of major poskim that one should not leave a mitzva in order to settle in Israel. That means not to make aliyah  when it means nullifying even such mitzvos as providing hospitality to guests so surely not when it means nullifying honoring of parents.)

In contrast if the situation is that the parents are not dependent on him - but rather it is nicer for them that he live nearby but that they won't be overwhelmed if he leaves and they will quickly adapt to his absence - then he should move to Israel because of the superiority of education for his children compared to what South Africa has to offer. However this is only if he can find a proper community in Israel as well as a livelihood (See what I wrote in 1:900 on this topic). This is what I think the general rules are in this matter. In reality it is necessary for everyone who faces this decision to seek advice from gedolim and tzadikim and through their advice they will be successful.

Corporality: Rambam's inconsistent views

There is no question that the Rambam is strongly against the belief that G-d has any physicality.

Third principle of faith Commentary to Mishna (Sanhedrin 10:3)... 3) G‑d is not a physical entity and has no physical attributes such as a body or physical power… All the physical description found in the Bible such as walking or standing, sitting or speaking are only metaphors and are not meant literally but are metaphors. Our sages described this as “The Torah speaks in the idiom of man.”

Rambam (Hilchos Teshuva 3:6–8,14): [6] These are the people that have no portion in the World to Come but are cut off and lost and judged for eternity because of their great wickedness and sins: .... [7] Minim are those who say G‑d doesn’t exist, or that the world has no ruler, or that it has a ruler but there are two or more divine entities, or that there is one divinity but that he has a body and physical attributes...

Rambam (Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah 1:9): If so, what is the meaning of the expressions employed by the Torah: "Below His feet" [Exodus 24:10], "Written by the finger of God" [ibid. 31:18], "God's hand" [ibid. 9:3], "God's eyes" [Genesis 38:7], "God's ears" [Numbers 11:1], and the like?

All these [expressions were used] to relate to human thought processes which know only corporeal imagery, for the Torah speaks in the language of man. They are only descriptive terms, as [apparent from Deuteronomy 32:41]: "I will whet My lightning sword." Does He have a sword? Does He need a sword to kill? Rather, this is metaphoric imagery. [Similarly,] all [such expressions] are metaphoric imagery.

A proof of this concept: One prophet says that he saw the Holy One, blessed be He, "clothed in snow white" [Daniel 7:9], and another envisioned Him [coming] "with crimson garments from Batzra" [Isaiah 63:1]. Moses, our teacher, himself envisioned Him at the [Red] Sea as a mighty man, waging war, and, at Mount Sinai, [saw Him] as the leader of a congregation, wrapped [in a tallit].

This shows that He has no image or form. All these are merely expressions of prophetic vision and imagery and the truth of this concept cannot be grasped or comprehended by human thought. This is what the verse [Job 11:7] states: "Can you find the comprehension of God? Can you find the ultimate bounds of the Almighty?"

In addition, according to Rav Chaim, the Rambam does not allow for a mistaken belief in physicality. The only way you get the World to Come is by not having a belief in physicality.

Rav Elchonon Wasserman(Explanations of Agados #2): The view of the Rambam is that a person who believes G‑d is physical is a heretic. The Raavad commented: “There are greater and better people than the Rambam who erred in this issue because of mistakenly accepting the literal meaning of verses and agada.” I heard in the name of Rav Chaim Brisker that the Rambam views that there is no such thing as inadvertent heresy. Irrespective of how a person arrives at a mistaken belief, the fact is that he believes something which is heretical. Furthermore, it is impossible to be a member of the Jewish people without proper faith. Rav Chaim used to say that “a nebach apikorus (mistaken heretic) is also a heretic.” It would appear that he must be correct since all heretic and idol worshippers are mistaken. Obviously there is no one more mistaken than one who sacrifices his son for idol worship and yet he is subject to capital punishment. However, this approach is problematic since a baby also doesn’t have proper faith and yet he is part of the Jewish people. Furthermore, a person who was denied proper education (tinok shenishbah) is allowed to bring a sacrifice to atone  -  without being labeled as a heretic (Shabbos 68b). Thus from these two cases it would seem that the Torah exempts an unwitting error also in the realm of beliefs? This can be answered by what we mentioned previously  -  the foundation principles of faith are obvious and no intelligent person could accept heretical beliefs. It is only because a person wants to reject his obligations to G‑d that he rationalizes that religious beliefs are not correct. Therefore, there is no such thing as an inadvertent heretical belief. On the other hand, if a person doesn’t intend to rebel against religion but mistakenly thinks something sinful is permitted by the Torah  -  then this is truly inadvertent. Perhaps this is what the Raavad meant that the person erred “because of misunderstanding verses and agada.” In other words, the person erred not because he wanted to reject religion but because he mistakenly accepted the literal meaning of religious texts. Thus, the Raavad would classify him as someone who mistakenly says a sin is permitted according to the Torah and therefore inadvertent heresy does exist… The Rambam on the other hand seems to feel that one could not err in thinking that G‑d has a body and that if he was serious about his religion it would be obvious to him that the texts cannot be taken literally…

And yet we see below an acknowledgement that the average man can't have a belief in a non-physical G-d. In fact the Rambam acknowledges that the use by the Torah itself of physical descriptions is an acknowledgement of the need for some physicality. So does that mean that all those who can't grasp the non-physical nature of G-d have no portion in the World To Come?

Moreh Nevuchim (1:26): You, no doubt, know the Talmudical saying, which includes in itself all the various kinds of interpretation connected with our subject. It runs thus:

 "The Torah speaks according to the language of man," that is to say, expressions, which can easily be comprehended and understood by all, are applied to the Creator. Hence the description of God by attributes implying corporeality, in order to express His existence: because the multitude of people do not easily conceive existence unless in connection with a body, and that which is not a body nor connected with a body has for them no existence. Whatever we regard as a state of perfection, is likewise attributed to God, as expressing that He is perfect in every respect, and that no imperfection or deficiency whatever is found in Him. But there is not attributed to God anything which the multitude consider a defect or want; thus He is never represented as eating, drinking, sleeping, being ill, using violence, and the like. Whatever, on the other hand, is commonly regarded as a state of perfection is attributed to Him, although it is only a state of perfection in relation to ourselves; for in relation to God, what we consider to be a state of perfection, is in truth the highest degree of imperfection. If, however, men were to think that those human perfections were absent in God, they would consider Him as imperfect. 

You are aware that locomotion is one of the distinguishing characteristics of living beings, and is indispensable for them in their progress towards perfection. As they require food and drink to supply animal waste, so they require locomotion, in order to approach that which is good for them and in harmony with their nature, and to escape from what is injurious and contrary to their nature. It makes, in fact, no difference whether we ascribe to God eating and drinking or locomotion; but according to human modes of expression, that is to say, according to common notions, eating and drinking would be an imperfection in God, while motion would not, in spite of the fact that the necessity of locomotion is the result of some want. Furthermore, it has been clearly proved, that everything which moves is corporeal and divisible; it will be shown below that God is incorporeal and that He can have no locomotion; nor can rest be ascribed to Him; for rest can only be applied to that which also moves. All expressions, however, which imply the various modes of movement in living beings, are employed with regard to God in the manner we have described and in the same way as life is ascribed to Him: although motion is an accident pertaining to living beings, and there is no doubt that, without corporeality, expressions like the following could not be imagined: "to descend, to ascend, to walk, to place, to stand, to surround, to sit, to dwell, to depart, to enter, to pass, etc.

It would have been superfluous thus to dilate on this subject, were it not for the mass of the people, who are accustomed to such ideas. It has been necessary to expatiate on the subject, as we have attempted, for the benefit of those who are anxious to acquire perfection, to remove from them such notions as have grown up with them from the days of youth.