A seeker of truth must be rude ( "navel")

Mishlei (30:32): If you have done foolishly in lifting up yourself, or if you have thought evil, lay your hand on your mouth.

ספר משלי (ל:לב) אִם נָבַלְתָּ בְהִתְנַשֵּׂא וְאִם זַמּוֹתָ יָד לְפֶה

While researching the issue of the necessity of being a nice person, I did a search regarding being a navel b'reshus HaTorah. This is the famous Ramban (Vayikra 19:2) which says that one needs to restrict even that which is halachically permitted -  in order not to be a disgusting person within a Torah framework. For example, he says one should not devote oneself to pleasure - even if permitted - in eating or sexual activity. Sanctity comes from restricting that which is permitted to you.

I discovered that in fact there is apparently a counter principle which praises being disrespectful (navel). If one is concerned about being pushy, rude and insensitive, it seriously interferes with being a genuine talmid chachom. In fact the Baal haMeor says that social sensitivities are a major impediment to anyone's pursuit of truth - whether Torah or secular.

A simple example is that if a person is not aggressive he will not get the answers he needs.

Avos(2:5): ...A shy person (bayshan) has trouble learning and an impatient person can not be a good teacher...

However the gemora utilizing the verse in Mishlei (30:32) states it even stronger. Success in Torah requires being a "navel" i.e., rude or disrespectful. 

Berachos(63b): Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmoni asked the meaning of Mishlei (30:32), If you have been foolish in uplifting yourself and if you have thought evil – put your hand on your mouth? That means that if you act as an unrefined person regarding Torah knowledge – then you ultimately will be successful. However  if you don’t then out of embarrassment of being ignorant you will cover your mouth with your hand.

Rashi(Mishlei 30:33): Our teachers have explained that if you make yourself rude and inconsiderate for the sake of learning Torah in discussing explanations and clarifying doubts with your teacher – then even if you appear to him as an idiot without any understanding – in the end you will be successful. However if you keep quiet and don’t ask him questions, then when they ask you questions regarding halachic matters – you will be forced to cover your mouth and be silent because you won’t know how to answer anything.

In fact this verse in Mishlei is used to explain Avos (2:5) by many Rishonim.

Semag(Positive mitzvos #12): It teaches in Avos (2:5) that a shy person can not learn nor can a rigid  person be a teacher. It says in Mishlei (30:32), If you have foolishly elevated yourself and if you have had evil thoughts put your hand over your mouth. This is explained in Berachos (63b), One who makes himself rude and disrespectful for the sake of Torah - will in the end be successful.

The Baal HaMeor expands this into a necessary approach for all seekers of truth.

בעל המאור על הרי"ף (ברכות א:א): וחכמי המחקר קראו כסא הכבוד גלגל השכל ואמרו כי בזרוח אורו והוא אור החיים על הנפש החיה הזכה אשר לקחה ממנו תזהיר כזוהר הרקיע ומצדיקי הרבים כככבים לעולם ועד על כן מלא חשק לב כל חכם לב לדרוש ולתור בחכמה להבין ולהשכיל אם להימין אם להשמאיל בין האמת ובין השקר להורות ולהבדיל. ויש אשר יגבר החשק הזה על לבו עד שיראה כחושק היוצא מדרך הצניעות והמוסר בהסירו מסוה הבשת מעל פניו לבחון האמת כענין שנאמר ואדברה בעדותיך נגד מלכים ולא אבוש ויש רמז לדבר הזה במסוה שהיה משה מסיר מעל פניו בבואו לדבר עם אדוניו לקבל זוהר ההוד וקרני הכבוד מלפני מלך הכבוד ישתבח שמו ועל הענין הזה היו מרבותינו החסידים והקדושים ז"ל כאותה שאמר רבינו הקדוש ילדות היתה בי והעזתי פני בנתן הבבלי אע"פ שהיה ידוע במדת הענוה ורב אחדבוי קמיה דרב ששת הוה מהדר ליה בבדיחותא ואמר רב פפא כל כי האי מילתא נימא איניש קמיה רביה ולא לשתוק דכתיב אם נבלת בהתנשא ואם זמות יד לפה ואמרו עוד מנין לתלמיד היושב לפני רבו ורואה זכות לעני וחובה לעשיר מניין שלא ישתוק ת"ל מדבר שקר תרחק וזה המנהג נהגו כל חכמי העולם כמו שכתב החכם המורה אבן גנא"ח בהשיבו על המורה הגדול בעל הדקדוק רבי יהודה ז"ל הזכיר דברי הפילוסוף שהשיב על רבו ואמר ריב לאמת עם אפלטון ושניהם אוהבנו אך האמת אהוב יותר ואמר עוד אני לא באתי לגרוע מעלת האיש הזה ולהשפילה אך להפליאה ולהגדילה כי כלנו משדי חכמתו הניקנו ומעושר תבונתו העניקנו ומפרי פי שכלו אנחנו לוקטים ובים דעתו אנחנו שטים והוא אשר פקח עינינו ולמדנו והועילנו וגדלנו והשכילנו בחכמה הזאת ובאשר למדנו מפיו אנחנו משיבים מדבריו על דבריו וכדברים האלה ויותר מהמה כל שיש להוסיף אני הצעיר אומר על רבינו הרב הגדול המובהק ר' יצחק ב"ר יעקב בעל ההלכות המכונה אבן אלפסי. ואינו צריך להאריך בגדולתו ובחכמתו כי היא גלויה לכל בעלי עינים. כשמש בחצי השמים. וכנפי צדקותיו. בחבור הלכותיו. פרושות על דורותיו. ועל כל דורות הבאים אחריו. כי לא נעשה חבור יפה כמוהו בתלמוד מאחרי סתימתו וע"כ חובה עלינו בכל דבר נכבד ומפואר לכבדו ולפארו ולקדשו ולטהרו ולהלבינו ולבררו כפי כחנו

The same word - נבל is used by the Rambam and the verse in Mishlei. This assertion about the desirability of being a navel is cited by many authorities - so it is clearly not a daas yachid. How to resolve the apparent contraction between these two concepts - avoiding being a navel in order to be holy and being a navel in order to be able to discover the truth?

Another clear example:

Berachos (62a): It has been taught: R. Akiba said: Once I went in after R. Joshua to a privy, and I learnt from him three things. I learnt that one does not sit east and west but north and south; I learnt that one evacuates not standing but sitting; and I learnt that it is proper to wipe with the left hand and not with the right. Said Ben Azzai to him: Did you dare to take such liberties with your master? He replied: It was a matter of Torah, and I required to learn. It has been taught: Ben ‘Azzai said: Once I went in after R. Akiba to a privy, and I learnt from him three things. I learnt that one does not evacuate east and west but north and south. I also learnt that one evacuates sitting and not standing. I also learnt it is proper to wipe with the left hand and not with the right. Said R. Judah to him: Did you dare to take such liberties with your master? — He replied: It was a matter of Torah, and I required to learn. R. Kahana once went in and hid under Rab's bed. He heard him chatting [with his wife] and joking and doing what he required. He said to him: One would think that Abba's mouth had never sipped the dish before! He said to him: Kahana, are you here? Go out, because it is rude.1 He replied: It is a matter of Torah, and I require to learn.

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)].