Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky: Bean counting - Non-Jewish woman vs niddah?

 This was originally posted in September 22, 2008 see also halacha is not bean counting

Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky(Emes LeYaakov Parshas Yechi page 237): A practical example of zealousness which is not based on a correct reading of the halacha is found in the following question. A person has the choice of marrying a Jewish woman who doesn’t observe the laws of family purity or a non‑Jewish woman. Which is preferable? A student who has not properly served an apprenticeship with an experienced posek will say that it is obvious that the person should chose to marry the non‑Jewish woman. That is because sexual relations with a nidah is punished by kares while sexual relations with a non-Jew is only a violation of a negative commandment of the Torah which is not punished by kares. The truth is not this way. Rambam (Hilchos Issurei Bi’ah 12:7-8) states that even though sexual relations with a non-Jewish maidservant is only a rabbinic prohibition he rules that, "This sin [of sexual relations with a non‑Jew] even though beis din does not impose the death penalty should not be viewed as minor because there is a loss associated with it. Contrary to all other sexual transgressions in which the son of the relationship is still his son in every respect and has the status of a Jew – even if the child is a mamzer – but the child from a non‑Jewish mother is not his son as it says in Devarim (7:4): For they will turn away your son from following Me.” That means that the son has been removed from following after G‑d. This activity causes him to attach himself to non‑Jews which G‑d has separated us from them so that we would follow after Him and thus he is rejecting G‑d. “ It is clear from this that the person should choose the relationship with the Jewish woman even though she doesn’t observe the laws of family purity.

---

[1] רב יעקב קמנצסקי (אמת ליעקב פרשת ויחי ע' רל"ז): דוגמא מעשית לקנאות שלא לפי הדין ניתן להביא מהשאלה הבאה: אדם שיש לו ברירה בין לישא בת ישראל שלא תשמור על טהרת המשפחה ובין לישא גויה, מה עדיף? התלמיד שלא שימש כל צרכו בודאי יאמר: הלא איסורי נדה הם בכרת, ואילו בעילת עכו"ם אינו אלא לאו בעלמא שאינו ענוש כרת, בודאי אם כן עליו לבחור בגויה. האמת היא לא כן. הרמב"ם, אף שדעתו היא שביאת שפחה אינה אלא מדרבנן, פוסק [הלכות מאיסורי ביאה יב:ז-ח] בזה"ל: עון זה אע"פ שאין בו מיתת בית דין אל יהי קל בעיניך אלא יש בו הפסד שאין בכל העריות כמותו שהבן מן הערוה בנו הוא לכל דבר ובכלל ישראל יחשב ואע"פ שהוא ממזר והבן מן הגויה אינו בנו שנאמר כי יסיר את בנן מאחרי מסיר אותו מלהיות אחרי ה' ודבר זה גורם להדבק בגוים שהבדילנו הקב"ה מהם ולשוב מאחר ה' ולמעול בו עכ"ל. ברור לפ"ז שעליו לבחור בבת ישראל אע"פ שהיא אינה שומרת טהרת המשפחה.

The sick reality of gittin today

I recently received a letter concerning a divorce in America. The letter writer noted that  the beis din sent him a letter which said (this is my paraphrasing) :

A plan was being developed - if you had resisted giving the get - that would have prevented you from seeing your children for many years and you would have been severely beaten and tortured.

As the recent indictments of Mendel Epstein and associates have shown - the above was not a rare event and it was apparently common knowledge amongst American rabbis and those dealing with gittin. Why was it tolerated? 1) Was it simply an acknowledgment that justice for women requires ignoring halacha and secular law? 2) Was it too lucrative for rabbis and therefore they don't want to disturb another rabbi's parnossa? 3) Perhaps the rabbis were afraid of being called a moser or suffer other sanctions. The answer obviously is all of the above.

Furthermore while such activity is clearly illegal according to the law of the land (dina d'malchuso) it is also illegal according to halacha and produced an invalid get. Even if you want to argue that beis din has the ability to administer this type of punishment - I think that is only a community beis din which is appointed and supported by the community - such as existed in Europe. However in most cases the beis din in America that deal with these cases is an ad hoc entity which is not connected to the community and is certainly not authorized by it.

Daughters inheriting: Forcing the involvement of secular courts instead of beis din

Friday night in the minyan I attended which is 99% kollel guys  - a dayan had been chosen to be the guest speaker before Maariv. He went into great detail describing the suffering and cruelty that he has observed when frum people insist on following the Torah law that wife and daughters do not inherit. In particular he mentioned a case in Bnei Brak involving one of the most distinguished families where a fight has continued for 30 years over whether the daughters receive part of the inheritance. 

His solution shocked me. It was to ignore the Torah and rabbinic law in these cases and instead either bypass beis din and go to the secular courts or extort a settlement from the male heirs. He said that in Israel if the daughters or wife do not sign the will then beis din has no power to deal with it and it automatically goes to secular court where there is an equitable distribution of the inheritance. Therefore he said that they should not sign the will or alternatively they should extort the mail heir and only sign on the condition that 50% of the estate goes to them.

Not only did no one stone him but no one even made a comment. Is this standard procedure these days?

While Rav Moshe Feinstein and others describe ways or bypassing the Torah requirements for inheritance - I am not aware of any call to not only ignore Torah and Rabbinic law but also to deliberately bypass beis din in favor of secular courts.

Judaism and Psychology: Saving a suicidal gay man - by reconcilling him with his estranged lover?

[update - added Rav Sternbuch's teshuva and Igros Moshe and additional scenarios There are times when religion and psychotherapy conflict. The following seems to be such a case.

A psychotherapist was dealing with a depressed young man who had been contemplating suicide. Many things had gone wrong in his life and he was having trouble coping. However the depression got significantly worse after he broke up with his male lover and the therapist became very concerned that he would actually kill himself. 

The therapist's supervisor suggest that it would be beneficial if the therapist tried to bring about a reconciliation with the lover in joint therapy sessions. Obviously attempting such a reconciliation raises serious halachic questions. Can the therapist be a facilitator for the client's sinful behavior - i.e., is this a problem of livnei ivair or mesaya lidvar aveira? Does the possible saving of his life outweigh other considerations such as his increased likelihood of sinning with his lover if they were reconciled?

The therapist's rabbi in fact poskened that it was prohibited to try and reconcile the client with his former lover. Two reasons were given 1) It is prohibited to facilitate another person's sinning (mesayea lidvar aveira)  2) One can not cure with prohibited acts (ein merapim b'issurim). Several days later the client in fact committed suicide.

However contrary to the rabbis' psak, I think in fact that attempting reconciliation would be permitted. 

I once asked Rav Sternbuch about the permissibility of therapy with a couple that did not keep taharas mishpacha. He cited the Chazon Ish as the source of a principle that if the discord reduces their sinning that it would be prohibited to provide them with therapy. However he noted that it is not unusual for couples today to commit adultery. Thus in fact there would be no reduction in sinning if there were marital discord and thus he said that therapy was permitted. [see teshuva below]

In this case, it is reasonable to assume that the frequency of homosexual acts would not be reduced by not reconciling them. There was  no reason he would not find other homosexuals to sin with. It was also reasonable that he would die without this therapy - so that would make it pikuach nefesh. The proposed therapy was not to cure the depression by telling him to have homosexual relations - rather the therapy was to reconcile him with his former lover. Thus  this therapy would only increase the likelihood of sinning with his lover- but not necessarily change the actual amount of sin.  Finally therapy would reduce the likelihood of suicide which is  considered murder. It is important to note that Rav Moshe Feinstein [listed below] and other poskim indicate that there is a major difference whether the facilitator to a prohibited relations is doing his facilitation as part of a paid job or whether he does it free.

Some related questions. 1) I was asked by a man who was committing adultery to help reduce his anxiety and guilt feelings. 2) A father and adult daughter feel guilty about their incestual relationship 3) A married woman wants to stop feeling guilty about being a prostitute because she really needs the money. 4) An unmarried couple are having shalom bayis problems which interfere with their sexual relations. 5) A teenager has anxiety about a gender change operations and wants therapy to go through with it. 6) Wife wants husband to join group where spouses are switched periodically 7) Abortion doctor wants help overcoming guilt. 8) Doctor has trouble pulling the plug on "brain dead" patients. 8) can a lawyer help a business deal which violates halacha? 9) can a secretary produce a contract for a business deal that violates halacha?

See also Igros Moshe (E.H. IV 87.1) concerning being a shadchan for non-observant couples Also that no rabbi in America can get a job as rav of a shul if he won't marry non-observant couples. He notes that getting paid his is a heter. I don't see a difference between the rabbi who marries couples who he knows won't keep taharas mishpacha and a therapist who promotes shalom bayis in forbidden relationships.

תשובות והנהגות כרך א סימן תעו

שאלה: יהודי תפוס בבית סוהר האם להשתדל להוציאו משם אף שיעבור בזה על איסור נדה באשתו

שמעתי ממקור מוסמך שביקשו מרבינו החזו"א זצ"ל להשתדל ולפעול עבור אחד שנידון למאסר לזמן ארוך, ושאל האם הוא שומר על טהרת המשפחה, והשיבו לו שלא שומר ונסתלק ולא רצה לעסוק בשחרורו, וראויים הדברים לגאון בישראל כמותו! 

וכיוצא בו אני נוהג בעזהשי"ת כשמבקשים ממני לסדר שלום בית אצל חפשיים אני נמנע כיון שמסייע בזה לעבור על איסור נדה, וכבר דרשו חז"ל (שבועות מז ב) לא תנאף לא תנאיף לא לסייע לניאוף.

ויש להטעים הדבר שבעצם במ"ע קיימא לן (כתובות פו ב) מכין אותו עד שתצא נפשו, ופירשו המפרשים דלפני שעבר גם על ל"ת כופין עד שתצא נפשו למונעו, (עיין בר"ן חולין קל"ב: דגם בל"ת קודם שעבר מכין אותו עד שתצא נפשו כדי שלא יעבור, וכן פשיטא ליה לרע"א בחידושי כתובות פ"ו. דגם בל"ת אמרינן הך דינא דכופין אותו ומיהו הרמב"ן בשיר השירים ד', י"א כתב דרק במצות עשה כופין דחמיר מל"ת ומכין אותו עד שתצא נפשו, משא"כ בל"ת. וכ"נ בקצוה"ח סי' ג' סק"ב במשובב שם). ואם כן כאן אף שסובל במאסר, הלוא ראוי לו לסבול כן שמונעים אותו בכך לעבור על איסורי כרת דנדה שדינו כעריות. 

ולפי זה בנידון דידן אף שגזרו עליו מאסר חמש שנים אין אנו מצווין להשתדל לשחררו, ולהיפך טוב שישב שמה ולא יעבור תדיר על איסור כרת ר"ל, ואם היתה השאלה באה לפני בי"ד כשידינו תקיפה, היו כופין אותו בכהאי גוונא אם אינו רוצה לשמוע, שהיו סוגרין אותו בחדר שלא יבוא לידי עבירה.

אמנם השאלה שבנידון שלפנינו הוא בתינוק שנשבה שלא נתגדל על ברכי התורה ודינו כאנוס, ועיין בגרש"ז (סוף הלכות ריבית) שאפילו שומע אחר כך דת ישראל עדיין הוא כאנוס הואיל ונתגדל בין הנכרים, ויש לומר כיון שהוא כאנוס איסורו קיל אף שפוגם, ובהדי כבשי דרחמנא למה לן לייסרו במאסר שנים רבות, וכיון שכן אנו מצווין לשחררו שאין דינו כמומר להכעיס, וראוי לשחררו ולהשפיע עליו לחזור בתשובה, ולא נמנע מלהצילו אף שיעבור בזה איסורים, כיון שאינו אלא בגדר אנוס. 

אמנם כל זה הוא אם הנידון היה האם להכניסו במאסר כדי להבטיח שלא יכשל באיסור נדה ר"ל, ובזה יש לצדד לכאורה דאם דינו כתינוק שנשבה שאנוס אין עלינו לייסרו במאסר שנים רבות, אבל כאן שנידון שניפעל לשחררו שאז חוזר לביתו הרי דומה כאלו אנו מאכילין אותו בידים איסור נדה ופשיטא שאסור, וגם איסור נדה דינו כעריות ולא שייך בזה אנוס שאפילו באונס יהרג ואל יעבור וז"פ.

ובעיקר הדבר אם מוטל עלינו ליסרו במאסר לכתחילה שלא יכשל באיסור נדה אף שלא ע"י בי"ד ואין ידינו תקיפה יש לתלות במחלוקת הקצוה"ח ונתה"מ בח"מ (סימן ג') אם דין מכין אותו עד שתצא נפשו נאמר רק על בית דין או על כל יחיד, (ועיין יש"ש ב"ק פ"ג סי' ט' דכל אחד מישראל רשאי להכות חבירו ולהפרישו מאיסור עי"ש ובשו"ת חת"ס חו"מ סי' קע"ז) ויש לומר שצריך בית דין שיש בזה גם גדר עונש למונעו וכעין רודף שממיתין אותו שהוא גם בגדר עונש, וכן תלוי אם הא דמכין אותו הוא בגדר עונש וא"כ בשבת אין מכין אותו עד שתצא נפשו שאין עונשין בשבת, עיין מ"ל (פרק כ"ד דשבת) אם מצילין מן העבירה הבא על ערוה בשבת בנפשו של רודף, משום שאין עונשין בשבת ע"ש, אבל לשחררו דומה למאכילו בידים כמ"ש ואסור. 

ולמעשה אמרתי שיציעו לאשתו שמוכנים לפעול לשחררו אבל רק בתנאי שישמרו התורה כולל איסור נדה, ואף שאין בהבטחתם משקל רב, מ"מ אם יבטיחו באמת ובתמימות נפעל כדי לשחררו, ואולי גם נשפיע עליו בזה לשוב לצור מחצבתו שקל יותר בחוץ, אבל בלי הבטחה מצידם לשמור טהרת המשפחה לא מצאתי מקום להקל. ומיהו בארץ ישראל פעילים גם בבתי סוהר להחזירם לדרך התורה והמצוה, ולהיפך דוקא שמה רבים שבים בתשובה, ודאי שם יש לעשות כרבינו החזו"א זצ"ל לא לשחררו לסייע לו בזה לעבור על איסור נדה.

Do talmidei chachomim really insult and belittle each other?

I just received this letter which raises an important issue - the negative actions and comments which talmidei chachomim make about each other. It is a timely issue since during sefira Rabbi Akiva lost 24 thousand students because they did not treat each other with respect (Yevamos 62b).

There are explanations that try and show that at least the cases in the Talmud are not what they seem (Chavis Yair). That it wasn't that they insulted each other but they weren't as respectful as they should have been - and they are just judged more severely than others. However there is another approach which understands them as negative as they seem but tries to explain the purpose of the negativity.

Lichvod HaRav shlit"a

... I write to you because your Daas Torah volume is gevaldig and I have given it as a gift to numerous people. So I felt I could write to you and maybe get some directions or Mareh Mekomos.

I say some shiurim to yungerleit and one of the issues that has come up a number of times is קינטורים of the Chachomim in the Gemora. eg. at the end of Beitzah where they laughed at Rabbi Abba and many other places in Shass.

Besides for the Teshuvos Chavos Yair that the Chofetz Chaim brings at the end of the Sefer is there someone who discusses the issues at length that I could learn?

...

BeHokoroh VeRagshei Kovod

 ===============
The simple answer is that Torah learning is based on an adversarial system which involves not only proving that others are wrong but is motivated in part by jealousy and showing that others are not as good or learned or righteous as they seem. [See Berachos (27b) where the Sages are described as warriors. Rashi says that is because they try to defeat each other in halachic discussion.] Furthermore Yuma (86b) says it is a mitzva to publicize the fact that certain talmidei chachomim or tzadikim - are not as big as they appear [publicizing hypocrites]- as can be seen from the sources below.

Berachos (28b) describes a prayer before learning "Our Rabbis taught: On entering what does a man say? ‘May it be Thy will, O Lord my God, that no offence may occur through me, and that I may not err in a matter of halachah and that my colleagues may rejoice in me and that I may not call unclean clean or clean unclean, and that my colleagues may not err in a matter of halachah and that I may rejoice in them’." Rashi says that the issue of rejoicing in the mistakes of others is meant literally. [You also might want to read the Seridei Aish's letters which were published by Dr. Marc Shapiro in Torah uMadda Journal ]

In fact the present Bostoner Rebbe told me that this is one of the differences between the Torah learning of Litvaks and Chassidim and why Litvaks are generally better scholars. When Litvaks learn Torah -  they learn primarily to determine what is truth. As a result the discussions get heated and each one tries with all his ability to show he is correct and the other is wrong. In contrast Chassidim learn primarily for the sake of the mitzva of Torah learning - to understand what the seforim say -  and there is much less heat and emotion.

יבמות סב: אמרו: שנים עשר אלף זוגים תלמידים היו לו לרבי עקיבא, מגבת עד אנטיפרס, וכולן מתו בפרק אחד מפני שלא נהגו כבוד זה לזה, והיה העולם שמם, עד שבא ר"ע אצל רבותינו שבדרום, ושנאה להם ר"מ ור' יהודה ור' יוסי ורבי שמעון ורבי אלעזר בן שמוע, והם הם העמידו תורה אותה שעה. תנא: כולם מתו מפסח ועד עצרת. אמר רב חמא בר אבא, ואיתימא ר' חייא בר אבין: כולם מתו מיתה רעה. מאי היא? א"ר נחמן: אסכרה.

מהרש"א חידושי אגדות (יבמות סב:) מפני שלא נהגו כבוד זה לזה כו' ולא חש כ"א מהם על כבוד תורה של חבירו דאין כבוד אלא תורה ולכך מתו במדה זו כי היא חייך גו' ואמרו שמתו במיתת אסכרה דאפשר דכ"א דיבר לשון הרע והיה מספר בגנות חבירו וסימן ללשון הרע אסכרה כדאמרינן פרק ב"מ ואמר שמתו בין פסח לעצרת להורות שמתו בהשגחה כי הוא הזמן ממוצע לבריאות וקרוב לרפואה כדאמרינן בשבת כל שקייני טבא בין דיבחא לעצרתא וק"ל:

במדרש רבה (קהלת י"א, ו') איתא שאמר לשבעת תלמידיו החדשים "הראשונים לא מתו אלא מפני שהיתה עיניהם צרה בתורה זה לזה, אתם לא תהיו כן, מיד עמדו ומלאו כל ארץ ישראל תורה", וטעם זה על כי היו צרי עין נתחדש לו אח"כ

קידושין (ל:): אמר רבי חייא בר אבא: אפי' האב ובנו, הרב ותלמידו, שעוסקין בתורה בשער אחד נעשים אויבים זה את זה, ואינם זזים משם עד שנעשים אוהבים זה את זה, שנאמר: את והב בסופה, אל תקרי בסופה אלא בסופה.

רש"י (קידושין ל:): נעשו אויבים - מתוך שמקשים זה לזה ואין זה מקבל דברי זה.

יומא (פו:): מפרסמין את החנפין מפני חילול השם, שנאמר ובשוב צדיק מצדקו ועשה עול ונתתי מכשול לפניו.

רש"י (יומא פו:): מפרסמין את החנפין - שהן רשעים ומראין עצמן כצדיקים, אם יש מכיר במעשיו מצוה לפרסמו מפני חילול השם, שבני אדם למידין ממעשיו, שסבורין עליו שהוא צדיק, ועוד, כשבא עליו פורענות בני אדם אומרים מה הועיל לו זכותו:

חפץ חיים (באר מים חיים - הלכות רכילות - כלל ט:ב.יז): ויעשה מעשה. שלא אמרו (יומא פו:) מצוה לפרסם את החנפים אלא לענין להזהיר לכתחלה שלא יבוא להתחבר עמו כדי שלא יבוא לידי הפסד, או אפילו אם כבר נתחבר עמו, והוא יודע את טבע האיש שהוא מספר לו שרק יחוש לדיבורו לענין לשמור את עצמו, אבל לא שיסובב לו על ידו היזק ממש ממה שלא היה בא לו אפילו אם היה מעיד עליו בב"ד לבד:

בבא בתרא (כא.): ואמר רבא: האי מקרי ינוקי דגריס, ואיכא אחרינא דגריס טפי מיניה - לא מסלקינן ליה, דלמא אתי לאיתרשולי. רב דימי מנהרדעא אמר: כ"ש דגריס טפי, קנאת סופרים תרבה חכמה.

שו"ע יורה דעה (רמה:יח): אם יש כאן מלמד שמלמד לתינוקות, ובא אחר טוב ממנו, מסלקין הראשון מפני השני.

בבא בתרא (כא:): אמר רב יוסף: ומודי רב הונא במקרי דרדקי דלא מצי מעכב, דאמר מר: (עזרא תיקן להן לישראל שיהו מושיבין סופר בצד סופר. וניחוש דילמא אתי לאיתרשולי. א"ל:) קנאת סופרים תרבה חכמה.

רש"י (ברכות כז:) בעלי תריסין - חכמים המנצחים זה את זה בהלכה 

רש"י (ברכות כח:): ולא אכשל - וישמחו חברי על כשלוני, הרי רעות שתים, שיבאו על ידי שאגרום להם שיענשו.
outdash2
 

Rav Moshe Feinstein: Honoring Conservative & Reform "Rabbis" with an aliyah?

This teshuva is relevant to the recent discussion of Rav Moshe's teshuvos regarding homosexuality which some claimed did not follow the classic Jewish understanding. The following teshuva dealing with the validty of a beracha was criticized in a similar fashion by the Consevative movement.  Amen and Amen: Blessings of a Heretic - like me  

 This fits in with my definition of a gadol, "One whose authority transcends his footnotes." or as Rav Rottenberg of Yeshiva Chofetz Chaim (a close talmid of Rav Moshe) told me, "Some say that Rav Moshe poskened directly from the gemora - I think he poskened from Heaven!"
 ============================================
Igros Moshe (O. C. 3:21): The issue of honoring heretics - in situations of need – by calling them to the Torah and other honors that are given out in the synagogue. Question: When "rabbis" of the Reform and Conservative movements occasionally come Shabbos to a shul of fully observant Jews, is it correct to give these "rabbis" an aliyah to the Torah? Answer: It is an elementary matter that it is inherently prohibited for these "rabbis" to be called up to the Torah. That is because each aliyah requires a beracha prior to the Torah reading and then a beracha after the reading- and the berachos of these "rabbis" are totally worthless and in fact one should not say amen after them. I have written in my sefer Igros Moshe (O.C. 2:50-51) that since these "rabbis" are heretics – when they mention G-d's name it has no special significance and thus the beracha is being said without shem and malchus at all. Consequently even though the Torah is being read by the reader and the congregation hears the Torah reading – nevertheless it is like a Torah reading without beracha. Reading with a worthless beracha is worse then the situation that existed prior to the institution of saying a beracha before and after each Torah reading. That is because after the decree for each Torah reading to have its own berachos - the beracha prior to the first aliyah no longer applies to subsequent aliyos because the the beracha after his aliyah has been said. Regarding other holy synagogue honors which don't require a beracha and are therefore not inherently prohibited - such as lifting up the Torah (hagba), rolling the Torah up (gelila), talking the Torah out (hotzah), putting it back (hachnasa), opening the ark (pesicha), closing the ark (segira) - nonetheless they should still not be given to heretics and these "rabbis" are heretics. In fact giving them these honors transgresses the prohibition of hypocrisy and flattery (chanifa). Consequently it is not fitting to give them these types of honors - as I have written in Igros Moshe (O.C. 2:51) - and unless there is great need it is prohibited to give them these types of honors. However if there is a great need to honor them – such as the concern that this will lead to disputes in the community and there is concern that there will be loss of funding for tzedaka – then there is a basis to permit the holy honors which don't require a beracha. But they should not get an aliya as I have explained. Regarding non-observant Jews who are not heretics, there is no inherent prohibition of giving them an aliya since they believe in G-d and his Torah but they transgress the Torah from lust – and one should answer amen after their berachos. Nevertheless it is clear that it is not nice to give them an aliyah because that is honoring sinners and therefore one should refrain from this unless there is some need such as a yahrtzeit which there would be concern for disputes or other comparable problems. In contrast these "rabbis" who are actual heretics and transgress the Torah out of spite and they try persuading others to go in their wrong path - their berachos are worthless and it is inherently prohibited to give them an aliyah as I said before.

“being frum or normal”? comments

 Hi Reb Daniel,

Hope you are well.

Re “being frum or normal”?

I wanted to share 3 things about Rav Yaakov ZTL (to our generation no last name is needed).

Two are first hand and one heard directly from the person who spoke to RY.

… I attended the chasuna of a close friend, grandson of RY.  (You may know R  from Midreshet Rachel?)

As I’m sure you know RY was opposed to mechitzas at chasunas.

In deference to that, there was no mechitzah.

There was a circle of men and a circle of women.  The distance between them was not huge.

It is etched in my memory seeing RY watching the dancing with a huge smile on his face.

As I believe you said, RY obviously held that not every situation that may bring  a challenge must be avoided or banned.

… I personally asked RY if you may accept the hand of a women who extends it in order to avoid embarrassing her.

He did not know me personally and I did not mention that I am in kiruv.

His exact words were , “mitstama mir ken meykel, as zis nor a derech eretz.”

Same principle, I believe.

… I heard directly from a chashuv yungerman in Lakewood (he sadly was niftar and I may the only person that knows this first hand).

He asked RY if it is appropriate for  yungerleit to ride bicycles.

He answered, “Absolutely, they need to get exercise.”

And , without being asked, RY went on to say, “the wives should also ride, they also need exercise”.

When the yungerman asked him about tznius?

RY responded, “that’s why they have different bikes for women”.

Same principle.

All the best,

M K

By the way, I often use your Yad Moshe.  

I actually want the content publicized as I think it’s a mitzva to preserve these things for posterity, especially given the direction of our Torah world.

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

Reb Yaakov himself rode a bike in camp until he was in his 70's because of concern that a fall could lead to broken bones - DT

A Gene-Hacked Pig Kidney Has Worked in a Brain Dead Human for a Month

 https://www.thedailybeast.com/a-gene-hacked-pig-kidney-has-worked-in-a-brain-dead-human-for-a-month?ref=home

A genetically engineered pig kidney transplanted into a brain dead man continues to function after 32 days—marking the longest time such a kidney has worked in a human being and another milestone in the emerging field of xenotransplantation (the transplanting of organs from one species to another).

A psychologist's role in religious change - is there one?

Case 1

Chassidim view that the rebbe's views are true and are based on ruach hakodesh. A chasid comes to a therapist and says he is unhappy, his wife is unhappy and so are his kids. He is following the views of his rebbe and his wife and children try their best to follow the guidelines of the rebbe. He has gone a number of times to the rebbe for guidance, but the rebbe says that his suffering is because of his yetzer harah and he just needs to try harder. However the chasid reports having no sense of fulfillment, spiritual accomplishment, emotional connection. There is no shalom bayis and the kids are depressed. There is no evidence of psychological problems being the cause of these complaints. The chasid reports serious doubts about the validity of his chassidus after he had a serious of discussions with friends who are Litvaks and different types of Chassidim. He yearns for intellectual independence and psychological space from the community and in particular the rebbe who he does not respect. He feels that he is trapped playing a role that for him is phony and hypocritical. He feels energized by immersing in different views and trying to clarify his own views of hashkofa. The therapist concludes that the problem is that the chasid and his families psychological and emotional needs are not met by this particular chassidus.

Case 2

A Litvak from a long line of Litvaks has it made and is the envy of his friends. He has mastered Shas, is a successful rebbe in a major New York yeshiva high school. Married the daughter of a well-known gadol who is a successful teacher in a seminary and a popular speaker. They have 5 kids who are doing well in yeshiva/Beis Yaakov. They have no health or financial worries. However collectively they are report that religion has become a culture and that they find nothing meaningful in what they do. While they are perceived as role models, they feel emptiness both spiritually and psychologically. Over the last year they have found a great attraction to Chassidus because of a couple they met Pesach at a hotel. He now yearns for the spiritual certainty and vibrancy he sees in chassidus – something that surprises him because he was raised to have disdain for Chassidus and rebbes. He feels a need to be a part of a community and to be able to be given guidance by a rebbe. The independence that a Litvak treasures, he views as alienation and distance from G‑d.

Case 3

The 17 year of daughter of a gadol finds it unpleasant living up to everyone's expectations of how a gadol's daughter should be. She would like a career which requires a college education. She wants to marry someone who is frum – but not a Torah genius who will spend the rest of his life learning 18 hours a day. She wants a husband who is a friend that she can relax with – not a revered figure that she must sacrifice her own needs to support and tend to. In short she does not want to be a rebbetzin who is married to the Chofetz Chaim – which is what her family expects of her. She really wants to have a comfortable existence and not the life of poverty that she grew up with sharing a 4 room apartment with her parents and 10 siblings. She came to the therapist because of migraine headaches, periodic bouts of depression and has recently started to cut herself (though she hasn't told her parents).

These cases are not really psychological problems but the result of a mismatch between the nature of the person and religious identity. Is it appropriate for a therapist to suggest a major religious change? If so how should he go about presenting the idea?

How to explain Torah & Psychology to kiruv rabbis?

I was recently asked by a major kiruv organization if I would be willing to write a 20-30 page pamphlet dealing with Psychology - for kiruv rabbis. This is an important issue - but it is complex. It requires discussing not only psychological theories but their correlates in Torah, explaining among other things - the scientific method, positivism, empiricism, reality, validity and statistics. I need to document all my assertions.

We have talked about using Torah values to guide and provide boundaries in the use of psychology - but this has to be condensed into a page or two. My concern also is that these kiruv rabbis really don't have a decent secular background to understand the subject properly. Nor are they likely to have a broad enough understanding of Torah dynamics and halacha.

If you are in kiruv or are a congregational rabbi -  what issues are important to you or are causing you problems. If you refer people to psychologists - let me know about the difficulties you have experienced.

A young man asks, "What qualities to look for in a wife?"

Dear Rabbi Eidensohn,

How are you?

As you know, I am looking for a wife these days.  I also have a keen interest in avoiding the kind of terrible situations you have blogged about recently where husband and wife become estranged and enemies.  Do you have advice for avoiding this outcome?  Do you believe it's avoidable (in some cases, most cases, all cases)?  What is your advice both for during the marriage and also proactive steps that can be taken beforehand in the process itself of seeking a wife.   Ie, are there particular traits or attitudes to be wary of, how to discern them in the prospective partner, etc.  Or a certain dynamic between the two people that will more likely lead to these problems later on? 

On the subject of how to achieve a fulfilling a relationship, I enjoyed the TED video you posted.  Granted it was a short talk, but I don't think she ever gave an actual suggestion or a solution for how "erotic couples" as she termed it (sexually and emotionally fulfilled) strike the balance between love and desire (reliability / mystery, responsibility/ freedom, etc).   The first thought that entered my mind was that the laws of nidda would be conducive to rekindling the desire through distance and separation as she described in the healthy couples and when they most desire their spouse (when they're away).   But yet we see, as you stated, these problems exist also in the Orthodox community.  So it must be more than that.  What would you say is the missing link here that is causing it to not work in the frum world?

What resources would you suggest for learning more about this subject as I aim to build a positive relationship that will succeed?

On one last point, I didn't quite understand why you cited that particular psak of Rav Moshe because it sounded like he only permitted this type of learning in the few days before the marriage for groom-to-be (because at other times it could lead to fantasies when we are not supposed to be preoccupied with those thoughts).   But by posting the video I would think you encourage this learning at any time to understand how a relationship should work. For example, I wouldn't need to wait until 3 days before marriage to view the TED talk.  It seems you take a more liberal view than Rav Moshe based on your professional experience.  Or am I not interpreting the cited psak correctly?

Thanks,

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

Dear ....,

You are asking an important question - which doesn't have a clear cut answer. Let me answer you last point first. Rav Moshe Feinstein's teshuva that I cited is referring to specific information regarding physical relations between husband and wife. In contrast the TED talk is talking about the psychological dynamics involved. I don't see any reason to assume a disagreement. If talking about marriage and marriage issues is problematic - then you would need to prevent the learning of Kiddushin and Kesubos and other gemoras until after marriage.

update: Regarding your main question. Start studying Igros Moshe (Y.D. I. #90).

[to be continued]

Weiss Dodelson: Divorce settlement required the Weiss's to ask me to take down blog posts

Just received the following letter which I will discuss with a number of talmidei chachomim before deciding what to do. Would appreciate reader feedback also. 

I am not sure why the Dodelson's required Rabbi Weiss to ask me - the Dodelson's could have asked themselves.  I assume that indicates that the Dodelson's think that I am an agent of the Weiss Family just as Shira Dicker was an agent of the Dodelson's. 

It simply isn't true. In fact my concern was to present both sides - not to force the Dodelson's to concede defeat - as Shira Dicker tried to do to the Weiss Family. I sincerely tried to present the Dodelson's viewpoint - including having guest posts from their supporters and posting their supporters comments.

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

Dear Rabbi Eidensohn,

Our family greatly appreciates your standing up for Torah, halachah and your convictions in supporting Avrohom Meir Weiss and our family throughout these past many months.

We are very well aware that you are completely independent from our family, and that you took up this cause on on your own, as a matter of conscience.

However, as a preclude to the get, the two parties entered into a mutual consent order, and we committed to request that you remove any references to this dispute from your website.

We respectfully request that you do so.

Thank you,

Yisroel Weiss