Turns out it was poisonous all along

Today, Erev Rosh haShanah no less, I had the chance to fulfill an unusual mitzvah - ולא תשים דמים בביתך "You shall not place blood in your home" (Devarim 22:8), which requires us to eliminate hazards from our homes.

Here's a mug shot of the hazard:

In early spring, I thought I would surprise my wife with new plants and flowers. I went to the nursery and picked up what I thought were some great purchases, including one called "Autumn Monkshood" (aka Wolfsbane, but I didn't know that at the time). It grew beautifully - dark green leaves, a very tall stem, and finally, just a week or two ago, it started to flower. Many buds are yet to open, promising rich, blue-purple flowers for weeks to come. Yes, it flowers in September-October! And into November, I'm told. And it's perennial, and hardy to Zone 2. What's not to like!

So the other day, I thought about buying a bunch more of these beautiful plants. I was in love. And then I Googled it and found out it's toxic. Not a little toxic, either - potentially fatal. Even contact can be hazardous, although there is some debate about the extent.

So out it went this morning. Depressing, but nice to fulfill this unusual mitzvah, going into the new year...

Bein Kodesh l'Chol - Between Sacred and Secular (Derashah, Rosh HaShanah 5780)

My current draft for Rosh HaShanah, inspired by Amir Daddon and Shuli Rand's new song, בין קודש לחול (video and translation available here). Comments welcome, on this page or in email!

Bein kodesh l’chol

Amir Daddon is a very successful Israeli musician and singer in his 40s; he’s been a part of various bands; in recent years he has released three solo albums. He identifies as secular.

Shuli Rand is a popular, 57-year old Israeli singer who grew up Religious Zionist, left observant Judaism, then became a Breslover chasid. You may know him as author of, and an actor in, the movie Ushpizin.

Last week, Daddon and Rand released a song together; it’s called Bein Kodesh l’Chol, “Between sacred and secular.”[1] The video shows the two of them standing in an alley in what may be the Old City. They take turns singing, and as they sing they pace and turn, but constantly face each other. Their actions, facial expressions, and most of their words mirror each other’s, and they are only about a meter apart for most of the song. They nod at each other’s words, sighing, conveying a deep, empathetic comprehension. Both are clearly distraught, exhausted, frustrated, their expressions intense, their arms flung out and gesturing. To me, it’s the rare case of a video that makes a song better.

Daddon, looking strung-out in a black t-shirt, with defeated eyes and a deep 5 o’clock shadow, sings first about his feelings of unrest in his secular life, and his frustration with the sense that he doesn’t belong in that life:

Between sacred and secular I live, with the truth that wreaks havoc inside of me, with a thousand habits, with every scar on my face, I go forth to scatter these words.

Between reality and insanity, it all comes back to me. There, in the place from which I come there is no peace, and this burden is heavy, and a little too big for me.

I need to grow out of this and be done with it, to grow out of this and be done with it.

And Rand, the chasid, in white shirt, black pants and a long beard and the same expression of pain and defeat, sings almost identically in response, questioning his comfort in his religious life:

Between sacred and secular I live, between the truth that wreaks havoc inside of me, with a thousand habits, with all of the fear on my shoulders, I go forth to scatter these words.

Between reality and insanity, it all comes back to me. There, in the place from which I come there is no peace, and this burden is heavy, and a little too big for me.

I need to grow out of this and be done with it, to grow out of this and be done with it.

My impressions from the song

The two musicians express a struggle between kodesh and chol, between sacred religion and secular attractions, between the scars of the secular and the fear of the religious, between what they each consider the poles of reality and insanity, as perceived from their opposite points of view. The two use nearly identical words to describe their own unsettled feelings where they are, their attraction to where the other is, and their wish they could “grow out of” this attraction and be done with it. The struggle of living bein kodesh l’chol exhausts them. It’s a dramatically, gorgeously honest song.

I’m not sure how many of us regularly feel the religious exhaustion that Daddon and Rand express. Many of us are at a stage where we have our peer groups, our work and our histories; we made the big religion and lifestyle decisions years ago. But some of us do, even within a mainstream, observant community like ours. We have people who are still making those decisions, and whose family members are still making those decisions:

·         Whether to go clubbing or to shul on Friday night;

·         Whether to invest in sending their children to Jewish day school and high school;

·         Whether to go kosher, or to stay kosher;

·         What sort of romantic lifestyle to pursue;

·         Whether to seek meaning in religion at all.

And even for those who aren’t wrestling with major religious decisions, we face personal decisions which test our ethical strength – exhausting decisions of relationships, of work, of chinuch. We search for clarity between right and wrong, but even if we find it, we strain to develop the strength to follow through. My point is not the specifics of religious struggle; my focus is the exhaustion of having that struggle. Like Daddon and Rand, we shake our heads, we fling out our arms, we cry and we turn this way and that, in search not so much for an answer as for a way out of searching.

How can a Jew navigate this exhaustion? Burned out and frustrated, wanting just to stop thinking about these choices, how does a religiously drained Jew move forward from chol? And while the song doesn’t take sides and doesn’t favour religion, I do; I want to choose kodesh. How does the religiously drained Jew move forward from chol, and find firm footing in the world of kodesh?

An answer may lie in Rosh HaShanah, and its emphasis on recognizing Hashem as Melech. A deep understanding of Melech can energize all of us, whether facing the Daddon/Rand exhaustion or our own.

What is a Melech?

The act of recognizing Hashem as Melech sometimes reminds me of the scene in the movie, My Fellow Americans, in which a former American president talks about how every time they played Hail to the Chief for him, he would sing to himself, “Hail to the Chief, he’s the Chief and he needs hailing.”[2] But Hashem doesn’t need hailing, and that’s not what we are doing when we recite malchiyot. Far from it – on Rosh HaShanah, when we say the malchiyot berachah coronating Gd, we are actually empowering the human being.

The Zohar coined a phrase,  לית ליה מגרמיה כלום. It means: “He possesses nothing of his own.”

·         The Zohar uses it to refer to the Moon,[3] which offers no illumination of its own.[4]

·         It also applies to Shabbat, a day when nothing is created; we prepare for it beforehand, and then, as the Zohar says, it communicates the reward for those preparations in the form of berachah to the ensuing six days.[5]

·         And in the Zohar and many other works of Jewish mysticism, לית ליה מגרמיה כלום also describes a king. Far from being “the owner of all”, the monarch is an owner of nothing.

The Zohar’s point is logical. The monarch receives whatever the nation provides via taxes, and whatever a predecessor bequeathed from a previous generation’s taxes, and the monarch’s job is to distribute that wealth for the benefit of the nation. The monarch is a conduit.

Kohelet[6] said it: “The benefit of a land, anywhere, is in a king who is enslaved to the field.” He isn’t out there plowing, but his role is to be a conduit, making sure that the benefits of the economy reach the nation.[7]

And the Rambam said it, in his Laws of Kings:[8] “Just as the Torah assigned great honour to the king, and all are obligated to honour him, so the Torah instructed him to keep his heart humble… He must be generous and merciful for small and great, he must exit and enter at their desire and for their good, and he must care for the honour of the smallest of the small.” The king’s role is to look after the nation.

In sum: In Judaism, a king is an enabler, a facilitator.

Hashem as Melech

The same is true for Hashem, whom we declare King on Rosh HaShanah. Of course, the phrase לית ליה מגרמיה כלום, that a king owns nothing, can’t apply directly to Gd; Hashem created everything, and possesses everything. But in terms of what Hashem’s monarchy means for us, in that sense, yes, לית ליה מגרמיה כלום, He has nothing. Because Hashem’s goal in this world is to enable us to achieve, to grow, to choose קודש over חול.

Rabbi Shimshon Pincus,[9] who served as Rosh Yeshiva in Yerucham and the Rabbi of Ofakim, spelled out this concept beautifully. He explained that a king, elevated above the narrow concerns of normal life, is positioned to act on his best impulses to benefit the entire population. And then he wrote, “This is the meaning of Malchut for Hashem. When we yearn and daven for Hashem’s monarchy to be revealed before the world” – like in ובכן תן פחדך – “we are davening for Hashem, in all His exalted glory, to become involved in a practical way in our world,” acting as a facilitator for us, enabling us להביא לגילוי יחודו של הקב"ה בעולם בכל הדרו, to live a life which demonstrates the Unity of Gd, in all its glory, for all the world to see.

In other words – on Rosh HaShanah, the day of Creation of humanity, we mark the ultimate, ongoing empowerment of humanity.[10] We call Hashem our מלך, but we aren’t only talking about Hashem as King and Owner; we are talking about Hashem as Empowerer, whose monarchy has the ultimate goal of facilitating our spiritual work.[11]

This is the ultimate realization of the romantic reciprocality envisioned by the Torah and elaborated upon by our sages – את ד' האמרת היום להיות לך לאלקים וללכת בדרכיו, “You have embraced Hashem on this day, to be Your Gd, to walk in His ways,” promoting His agenda, וד' האמירך היום להיות לו לעם סגולה, “Hashem has embraced you on this day, to be a special nation for Him.”[12]

What a gripping, resonating vision – the Jew not as an anonymous, struggling citizen of the Divine empire, but the focus of that empire, and the Divine Emperor personally focussed, entirely, on our spiritual success! What a vision! What a responsibility!

Back to Daddon and Rand: Empowerment

In their bein kodesh l’chol existence, caught between the sacred and the secular, Amir Daddon and Shuli Rand have two problems.

·         First, they are spiritually torn; one lives in the reverence of the sacred and is drawn toward aspects of the secular, the other bears the scars of the secular world and is drawn toward aspects of the sacred. It’s hard to live in both worlds; Hashem is mavdil bein kodesh l’chol, Hashem has divided the two dimensions, and their souls are straddling that division.

·         But second, they are exhausted, burned out, from the intensity of this struggle. They feel too weak to pursue this intense struggle to its end and to make the hard choices that come with it.

No one can answer the first problem for us; in a world of Free Will, no one will force a person from the camp of chol to the camp of kodesh. But for the second problem, the sense of helplessness, Rosh HaShanah asserts that help is on the way! Hashem is Melech!

·         Like the melech that is the Moon, reflecting the light of the Sun.

·         Like the melech that is Shabbat, channeling berachah to the week ahead.

·         Like the melech that is a human king, distributing the wealth of a nation to benefit the land, and caring for “the honour of the smallest of the small.”

Hashem is here to enable and empower us!

·         If Shuli Rand feels burnt out, the Melech will give him the strength to keep going!

·         If Amir Daddon feels exhausted, the Melech will grant him the energy to keep seeking!

·         And if you or I feel like our personal struggles bein kodesh l’chol – whether Kashrut and Shabbat or Minyan and Tzedakah – are too hard and not worth the strain and struggle, Rosh HaShanah’s Melech declares, “This is the top of My agenda, this is why I created the universe, all those Rosh HaShanah’s ago!” You are not small; you are the reason I am Melech.

שמור נא עלי

In a moment, we will blow shofar. As the shofar blasts ring in our ears, we should have in mind that we are fulfilling a mitzvah – and we should also have in mind the closing words of the song: “שמור נא עלי, רק שלא יכשלו רגלי. Please, watch over me; just don’t let my feet stumble.”

The ambiguity of the song and video allows us to think that the singers could be addressing each other or Gd, but on Rosh HaShanah, during shofar, we voice this plea directly to Hashem, our Melech.

·         שמור נא עלי! Tekiah, a straight sound, erupting from the shofar with pride and strength – Hashem, You are our Melech!

·         שמור נא עלי! Shevarim, a groan, three tired breaths pushed through the shofar – Hashem, please invest energy in me!

·         שמור נא עלי! Teruah, a staccato series of gasps frenetically jolted from the shofar anxiously - Hashem, let me see and feel how You are here for me, enabling me!

This year, may we merit to see and feel Hashem’s שמירה, Hashem’s help for all of us, how our Melech is working and manipulating our world to enable us to find our spiritual path. שלא יכשלו רגלי, may our legs never falter, but instead may we march into the future with a כתיבה וחתימה טובה.

---

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCJh9YcrL3k

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWWQVmKOI28

[3] See Zohar Vayeshev pg. 181a

[4] For more examples, see Zohar Chayei Sarah pg. 124b-125a, Zohar Vayishlach pg. 168b,  Zohar Vayechi pg. 238a

[5] Zohar Yitro pg. 88a. And it is called a melech or מלכה, as per Shabbat 119a, which will fit our point here.

[6] Kohelet 5:8

[7] The Jews demanded a King, and the prophet Shemuel criticized them. According to the classic commentator Rabbeinu Nisim (Derashot haRan 11), the Jews wanted someone who would hold all of the power within himself. But the Divine vision is for a king who is just a conduit to communicate and implement the Divine message to the nation.

[8] Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Melachim 2:6

[9] שבת מלכתא, חלק א' פרק א'. I am grateful to Rabbi Ezriel Sitzer for pointing me to this source.

[10] Humanity as a whole, as צלם אלקים. The Jewish nation, the collective Knesset Yisrael which is a member of the ברית. And the individual.

[11] Worth noting - אבינו מלכנו is not an oxymoron – the parent is the ultimate Melech, empowering the child.

[12] Berachot 6a, building on Devarim 26:17-18

Amir Daddon, Shuli Rand and Rosh HaShanah

For a variety of reasons, I haven't posted here in a very long time, and I don't know whether anyone bothers to check this blog for updates anymore. But I am taken by a new song by Amir Daddon and Shuli Rand; it comes with a video which truly augments and deepens the emotion conveyed by the music:

Here is my attempt to translate the lyrics; I'd welcome corrections (especially from Israelis who will be more attuned to the nuances of current slang):

עברית

בין קודש לחול אני חי,

עם האמת שמשתוללת בי,

עם אלף הרגלים,

עם כל צלקת שעל פני

אני יוצא שוב לפזר את המילים.

בין המציאות לשגעון הכל חוזר אלי,

שם במקום ממנו באתי אין שלום,

והמשא הזה כבד וקצת גדול עלי,

אני צריך לגדול מזה ודי,

לגדול מזה ודי.

בין קודש לחול אני חי,

בין האמת שמשתוללת בי,

עם אלף הרגלים,

עם כל הפחד שעל כתפי

אני יוצא שוב לפזר את המילים.

בין המציאות לשגעון הכל חוזר אלי,

שם במקום ממנו באתי אין שלום,

והמשא הזה כבד וקצת גדול עלי,

אני צריך לגדול מזה ודי,

לגדול מזה ודי.

שמור נא עלי.

רק שלא יכשלו רגלי

בין המציאות לשגעון הכל חוזר אלי,

גם במקום ממנו באתי אין שלום,

והמשא הזה כבד וקצת גדול עלי,

אני צריך לגדול מזה ודי,

לגדול מזה ודי.

בין קודש לחול אני חי.

And in English:

Between sacred and secular I live,

With the truth that wreaks havoc inside of me,

With a thousand habits,

With every scar on my face,

I go forth to scatter these words.

Between reality and insanity, it all comes back to me.

There, in the place from which I come there is no peace,

And this burden is heavy, and a little too big for me.

I need to grow out of this and be done with it,

to grow out of this and be done with it.

Between sacred and secular I live,

between the truth that wreaks havoc inside of me,

With a thousand habits,

With all of the fear on my shoulders,

I go forth to scatter these words.

Between reality and insanity, it all comes back to me.

There, in the place from which I come there is no peace,

And this burden is heavy, and a little too big for me.

I need to grow out of this and be done with it,

to grow out of this and be done with it.

Please, watch over me,

Just don’t let my feet stumble.

Between reality and insanity, it all comes back to me.

Also in the place from which I come there is no peace,

And this burden is heavy, and a little too big for me.

I need to grow out of this and be done with it,

to grow out of this and be done with it.

Between sacred and secular I live.

Part 2 coming soon - my derashah for Rosh HaShanah, inspired by this song...

Mental Health and Mitzvot: A Source Sheet

Yes, I know I haven't posted here in forever. It's not for lack of things to say...

In any case: I'm scheduled to give a shiur this Monday evening on "Mental Health and Mitzvot". Specifically, I expect to look at four ways in which halachah addresses mental illness as a reason for exemption from the Torah's obligations. Because I'm including some material which people may not be familiar with, I thought I would post the source sheet here, for those who still frequent these cobwebbed webpages. I expect to post a recording of the shiur on YUTorah.org.

Cases

(1)   Susan, age 14, is undergoing nutritional rehabilitative therapy for life-threatening anorexia; her treatment team helps her develop healthy eating habits through regular meals, while she works on her underlying emotional issues. Yom Kippur is coming; must Susan fast?

(2)   David, age 55, has been in counseling for 30 years for anxiety attributed to lifelong emotional abuse by his father. The abuse was largely verbal, through criticism and insults, from early childhood through the present. David’s father passes away; is David obligated to sit shivah?

(3)   Samantha, age 25, is hospitalized with schizophrenia; her doctors believe that her delusions place her at risk of self-harm. Is Samantha’s family obligated to arrange kosher food for Samantha?

(4)   Avraham, age 18, experiences severe OCD, with a particular manifestation in the area of prayer. He cannot complete key lines, like the Shema, without hesitation and repetition which drag on for more than an hour at a time. During the treatment process, Avraham’s psychologist would like to try ERP, instructing Avraham to recite prayers just one time, even if the pronunciation or level of concentration are halachically inappropriate, and keep going. Is this acceptable?

Argument 1 for Overriding Halachic Imperatives: Halachah Endangers Health

1.   Talmud, Taanit 22b; Rashi’s commentary

יחיד שנרדף מפני נכרים או מפני לסטין ומפני רוח רעה על כולן יחיד רשאי לסגף את עצמו בתענית

מפני רוח רעה - שנכנס בו רוח שידה, ורץ והולך, ושמא יטבע בנהר או יפול וימות.

If someone is pursued by non-Jews, bandits or ruach raah, for any of these someone [else] may cause himself suffering by fasting [on Shabbat].

Rashi: The spirit of a sheid enters him, and he runs about; [one prays] lest he drown in a river or fall to his death.

2.   Rabbi Moshe Feinstein (20^th century USA), Igrot Moshe Yoreh Deah 2:59

אולי יש לדון מצד מחלתו אם יאמרו הרופאים שיש בזה ענין פקוח נפש, כגון דעלול מזה להרוג את עצמו באם יהיה לו איזה צער, או דיעבור על דברים שאסורים גם בדיני המדינה ולא ישמע להפאליס ויריב עמם עד שיבא מזה שיהרגוהו, או שיאמרו דעצם המחלה היא סכנה שבאה לו מקלקול שבמוחו וא"א לרפאותו אלא במקום ההוא

Perhaps there is room to debate regarding his illness: If doctors were to identify a life-saving issue, such as that he might respond to pain with suicide, or that he might violate civil law, not listen to the police, and resist such that they might kill him, or that the illness itself is dangerous such that his brain is damaged, and he can only be healed there…

3.   Rabbi Moshe Feinstein (20^th century USA), Igrot Moshe Even haEzer 1:65

באשה שנשתטית אחר הלידה בשני הילדים שהולידה והרופאים אסרו לה להתעבר אם יש להתירה לשמש במוך י"א תמוז תשכ"א.

הנה ודאי צדק כתר"ה ששטות הוא ענין סכנה לא רק לעצמה אלא גם להילדים הקטנים שאף מי ששטותו אינו לעשות רע, אפשר להתהפך שתרצה לעשות רעה לעצמה ולהילדים ח"ו ואי אפשר להעמיד שומרים על זה. ולכן יש להתיר לה לשמש במוך...

Regarding a woman who became insane after the birth of her two children, such that the doctors forbid further pregnancy. May she use contraception?

Certainly, his honour is correct; insanity is dangerous not only for herself, but also for her small children. Even one whose insanity does not currently incline toward harm could still change, wanting to harm herself or her children, Gd forbid, and one cannot stand guard for this. Therefore, one should permit her…

4.   Rabbi Isser Yehudah Unterman (20^th century England, Israel), HaTorah v’HaMedinah 4 pp. 26-27

ובהעמק שאלה מפרש כי פלוגתתם תלויה בפלוגתת בן פטורא ורע"ק... ונפלאים בעיני הדברים מאד, כי אי אפשר לומר דכאן מיירי בסכנת נפש ממש שהאחרים ימותו בצמאון, דהאיך יתכן הדבר שר' יוסי יאמר כי כביסתן קודמת לחיי אחרים? ואעפ"י דערבוביתא דמאני מביאה לידי שעמום, מ"מ אין זה כלל וכלל בגדר סכנה קרובה ולא נחשבה אפילו לספק סכנה אלא לדבר שיכול להסתעף ולבוא לסכנה...

And in Haameik She’eilah he explains that their debate depends upon the debate of Ben Petura and Rabbi Akiva [regarding choosing between saving one’s self and saving others]… This is very shocking for me, for one could not say that this case involves actual danger to life, that the others would die of thirst! How could Rabbi Yosi say that their laundry precedes the survival of others? And even though dirty clothes can trigger depression, still, this is not at all “imminent danger” and it is not even considered potential danger, but something which could evolve into danger…

5.   Rabbi Moshe Sofer (18^th century Pressburg), Chatam Sofer Orach Chaim 83

מ"מ בהא סלקינן דלרוב הפוסקים משמע בפשיטות דבמה שמעמידו אצל נכרים אינו כמאכילו בידים... א"כ הכי שרי ובתנאי שכשיגיע לבן י"ג שנים ויום א' יוציאוהו משם עכ"פ.

Still, we conclude that from most authorities it seems clear that keeping him with non-Jews is not the same as personally feeding him [non-kosher food]… If so, one may do this, so long as they remove him when he reaches 13 and one day.

6.   Rabbi Yechiel Michel Epstein (19^th-20^th century Lithuania), Aruch haShulchan Orach Chaim 320:26

ודורס האדם שלג ברגליו ואינו חושש ואף על פי שלא ימלט דדרך דריכתו נימס מעט שלג מ"מ כיון דזהו דרך הלוכו לא שייך לאסור בזה וא"כ נהיה סגורים בבתינו כל ימי החורף ולא גזרו בזה...

One may trample snow without concern, even though some snow must melt when he walks. Still, since this is the way of walking, prohibiting this is not relevant; we would be locked inside all winter, and they did not make such decrees…

7.   Rabbi Ovadia Yosef (20^th century Israel), Yabia Omer 3:Yoreh Deah 23

ראיתי להגרא"י אונטרמן שליט"א בשבט מיהודה (עמ' שיד) שאחר שחילק בין סומא לנכפה כאמור כתב בזה"ל, שוב התבוננתי כי אין לחלק בין זל"ז ויש סכנה ממשית גם לסומא, ולכן מקרי פקוח נפש לרפאתו מעיורון, משום שלא יתכן שהסומא ישב תמיד בבית, וכשעובר ברחוב אורבות לו סכנות שונות, וגם צריך לעלות ולרדת במדרגות ואין הסכנה נמנעת...

I saw that Rabbi Isser Yehudah Unterman wrote the following, after distinguishing between [the levels of danger involved for] a blind person and an epileptic: I then thought that one should not distinguish between them, and there is substantive danger for the blind person as well, such that healing him of blindness would be called 'saving a life'. It would be impossible for the blind person to stay at home eternally, and various dangers would lie in wait for him on the street. Further, he must ascend and descend stairs, and danger is not absent…

8.   Rabbi Yitzchak Weiss (20^th century England, Israel), Minchat Yitzchak 4:8:2

אמנם נתעוררתי מת"ח גדול אחד, דאם מניעת התפילין יוכל לגרום צער להחולה, שנפשו עגומה עליו, לאיש ירא וחרד, על האי אפשרות לקיים מצוות תפילין, וחושש שלא להיות בכלל קרקפתא דלא מנח תפילין ח"ו, וחלישת הדעת הזו, תוכל לפעול ג"כ חלישת בהבריאות של החולה, אז יש להקל להביא עמו התפילין, - והראה לי שכה"ג כתב לו הגה"צ מליובאוויטש שליט"א, בנדון חולה אחד, שהי' שאלה בדבר אם מותר לו להתפלל וללמוד...

In truth, a great scholar pointed out to me that if withholding tefillin could pain the patient, as he is depressed about [missing] the chance to don tefillin, and he is intensely Gd-fearing, and he is concerned about being in the category of “the head that does not don tefillin”, Gd forbid, and this depression could catalyze weakness of the patient’s health, then one may be lenient to bring tefillin with him. And he showed me that the Lubavitcher Rebbe wrote thus to him regarding a patient where there was a question of permitting him to learn and study…

Argument 2 for Overriding Halachic Imperatives: Halachah Imposes a Great Burden

9.   Talmud, Berachot 19b-20a

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב המוצא כלאים בבגדו פושטן, אפילו בשוק. מאי טעמא? אין חכמה ואין תבונה ואין עצה לנגד ד' - כל מקום שיש חלול ד' אין חולקין כבוד לרב.

מתיבי "קברו את המת וחזרו, ולפניהם שתי דרכים אחת טהורה ואחת טמאה, בא [האבל] בטהורה באין עמו בטהורה, בא בטמאה באין עמו בטמאה, משום כבודו," אמאי? לימא אין חכמה ואין תבונה לנגד ד'! תרגמה רבי אבא בבית הפרס דרבנן...

Rav Yehudah said, citing Rav: One who finds shaatnez in his own garment should remove it, even in the market. "There is neither wisdom nor understanding nor counsel opposite Gd (Proverbs 21:30)" – where there is desecration of Gd, we do not give honour to the great.

But we have learned, “After burying the body, when returning, if they have two paths, one tahor and one tamei, if [the mourner] takes the tahor path then they escort him on the tahor path, if he takes the tamei path then they escort him on the tamei path, for his honour.” Why? Cite Proverbs 21:30! Rabbi Abba explained: This is a beit hapras, which is only impure rabbinically.

10. Rabbi Yisrael Meir Kagan (Chafetz Chaim, 19^th-20^th century Poland), Shaar haTziyun 322:12

עיין בפרי מגדים שמצדד דהוא הדין דמותר לקטום הקיסם ביד כדי לחצות בו שיניו אם אי אפשר לו לחצות בו בלא זה, וכפי מה שכתבנו מקודם דקטימת הקיסם ביד הוא רק משום שבות

See the Pri Megadim, who contends that the law permits cutting the splinter by hand to pick one's teeth where he has no other way to pick his teeth. It is as we have written, that cutting the splinter by hand is only rabbinically prohibited.

11. Rabbi Moses Nachmanides (Ramban, 13^th century Spain), Laws of Niddah 9:25

ומדיני החציצה לא טוב היות האדם מחמיר יותר מדאי ומחפש אחר הספיקות לפסול טבילתה בדבר הקל, כי אם כן אין לדבר סוף... לא יכניס אדם ראשו בספיקות החמורות אשר אין להן קץ וסוף.

With the laws of chatzitzah, one should not be overly strict, seeking doubts with which to disqualify immersion for minor matters. There would be no end to this… One should not insert his head into serious doubts, which are interminable.

12. Talmud, Moed Katan 27b

ואמר רבי יוחנן הכל חייבין לעמוד מפני נשיא חוץ מאבל וחולה.

Rabbi Yochanan said: All must rise for the nasi, other than a mourner or one who is ill.

Argument 3 for Overriding Halachic Imperatives: The Patient is Exempt

13. Talmud, Chagigah 3b

תנו רבנן: "איזהו שוטה? היוצא יחידי בלילה והלן בבית הקברות והמקרע את כסותו." איתמר רב הונא אמר עד שיהו כולן בבת אחת. ר' יוחנן אמר אפי' בא' מהן. היכי דמי? אי דעביד להו דרך שטות אפילו בחדא נמי! אי דלא עביד להו דרך שטות אפילו כולהו נמי! לא, לעולם דקא עביד להו דרך שטות... כיון דעבדינהו לכולהו הוה להו כמי שנגח שור חמור וגמל ונעשה מועד לכל. אמר רב פפא אי שמיע ליה לרב הונא הא דתניא "אי זהו שוטה זה המאבד כל מה שנותנים לו" הוה הדר ביה. איבעיא להו כי הוה הדר ביה ממקרע כסותו הוא דהוה הדר ביה דדמיא להא, או דלמא מכולהו הוה הדר? תיקו.

“Who is a shoteh? One who travels alone at night, and who sleeps in a cemetery, and who tears his clothing.” Rav Huna said: One who displays all of these at once. Rabbi Yochanan said: Even one of these behaviours.

But what is the case? If he acts apparently irrationally, even one [act] should suffice! If he does not act irrationally, even all of them would not suffice! No; this is where he acts apparently irrationally, but one could explain [each symptom in a rational way]… Once he performs all of them, it is like an animal that gores an ox, a donkey and a camel; it is now identified as dangerous for all.

Rav Pappa said: Had Rav Huna heard the lesson, "Who is a shoteh? One who destroys that which people give him," he would have recanted.

Does Rav Pappa mean he would have recanted from listing the trait of tearing his clothing because it is similar, or that he would have recanted from all of them? This remains unclarified.

14. Rabbi Yosef Karo (16^th century Israel), Beit Yosef Even haEzer 121

ולכאורה היה נראה דחד מהני ארבע דתניא בגמרא בעינן ליחשב שוטה, אבל אי עביד שאר דברים אחרים דרך שטות אכתי בחזקת שפוי הוא... אלא דמדברי הרמב"ם שלא הזכיר דברים הללו אלא סתם וכתב "שנטרפה דעתו וכו' בדבר מן הדברים" משמע דהני ד' דברים השנויים בברייתא לאו דוקא אלא לדוגמא נקטינהו והוא הדין לשאר דברים. ונראה שהכריחו לפרש כן מדחזינן דבברייתא קמייתא קתני תלת ולא קתני "מאבד מה שנותנין לו" ובאידך ברייתא קתני "מאבד מה שנותנין לו" ולא קתני אינך תלתא...

It would appear that one of the four behaviours mentioned in the Talmud would render a person a shoteh, but performing other irrational acts would leave a person in his presumed status of sanity… but from the Rambam, who did not mention these acts and only said, "one whose mind is torn… in some matter," it sounds as though the four items taught here are not specific, and are only examples, and other behaviours could also do it. It appears that he was driven to state thus from the fact that the former source listed three behaviours and did not list "destroys that which people give him," and the latter source listed "destroys that which people give him" and did not mention the other three…

15. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein (20^th century USA), Igrot Moshe Yoreh Deah 4:29

הנה ודאי איכא חילוק בין שוטה ובין פתי ביותר (עי' בזה מש"כ באגרות אה"ע ח"א סימן קס"ד לעניין חליצת פתי ביותר) - ששוטה לא תלוי בכשרונות הבנת דברים ועניינים. דאף בעלי כשרון להבין הדברים, אפשר שדעתם תהא משובשת ומטורפת, והיינו שיודע ומכיר שאיכא חילוק בין הדברים שרואה, אבל הוא טועה בדמיונו ומתחלף אצלו הדמיונות בזמנים קצרים מאוד...

Certainly, there is a difference between a shoteh and one who is exceptionally unintelligent – for being a shoteh is not about powers of understanding his affairs. Even one who is able to understand matters may have a confused, torn mind, meaning that he knows and understands that there are differences between the things he sees, but he errs in his delusions, and his delusions change in very brief periods of time…

16. Rabbi Yosef Karo (16^th century Israel), Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat 35:8

שוטה, פסול. ולא שוטה שהוא הולך ערום ומשבר כלים וזורק אבנים בלבד, (אלא) כל מי שנטרפה דעתו ונמצאת דעתו משובשת תמיד בדבר מהדברים, אף על פי שהוא מדבר ושואל כענין בשאר דברים, הרי זה פסול, ובכלל שוטים יחשב.

A shoteh is disqualified [from testifying]. This is not only a shoteh who wanders without clothing and breaks implements and throws stones, but anyone whose mind is torn, so that his mind is confused perpetually on some matter, even though he speaks and inquires on point in other areas. He is disqualified, and considered a shoteh.

17. Rabbi Moshe Sofer (18^th century Hungary), Chatam Sofer Even haEzer 2:2

הנה לדון בדיני השוטים א"א כ"א בראיית עיני הדיין המבין מה טיבו ומהותו וא"א לברר בכתב מה ענינו וטבעו ומהותו וכמ"ש הרמב"ם פ"ט מה' עדות ואין לדיין אלא מה שעיניו רואות

Judging in the matter of shotim is impossible other than through the eyes of a judge who understands his nature. One cannot clarify his nature in writing. As the Rambam wrote), "The judge only has what his eyes see."

18. Rabbi Baruch Frankel-Teomim (18^th-19^th centuries Galicia, Moravia), Ateret Chachamim, Even haEzer 18

ומה שרצה כבוד מעלתו להמציא שאם השטות מצד חולה מרה השחורה שאנו קורין מלאנקאלי אינו בכלל שוטה, לא מחוור, דתחת שם מלאנקאלי הוא גם משוגעים גמורים, כאשר ידוע לאשר יש לו ידיעה קצת בספרים המחוברים בזה... וממילא אם הגיע האדם בעל מלאנקאלי להתמיד שטות בדבר שמורה על טירוף דעת, בוודאי הוא מכלל השוטים לשיטת הרמב"ם... יהיה סיבתו מה שיהיה.

His honour’s wish to innovate that if irrationality derives from illness of black bile, which we call ‘melancholy’, then he is not a shoteh, is not clear to me. The class of ‘melancholy’ includes people who are entirely irrational, as is known to anyone who has some knowledge of the texts composed about this… As a result, if someone with ‘melancholy’ displays perpetual behaviour in a matter which demonstrates a torn mind, he certainly is within Rambam’s category of shoteh… regardless of the cause.

19. Rambam (12^th century Egypt), Mishneh Torah, Laws of Testimony 9:10

הפתאים ביותר שאין מכירין דברים שסותרין זה את זה ולא יבינו עניני הדבר כדרך שמבינין שאר עם הארץ, וכן המבוהלים והנחפזים בדעתם והמשתגעים ביותר הרי אלו בכלל השוטים, ודבר זה לפי (מה) שיראה הדיין שאי אפשר לכוין הדעת בכתב.

Those who are especially foolish [peti], who do not recognize contradictory statements and do not understand matters as other normal people do. Also, those who are confused and hasty in their minds, and those who are especially foolish, are in the category of shotim. It is as the judge sees it; one cannot specify a mindset in writing.

20. Rabbi Yehoshua Falk (16^th century Poland), Sefer Meirat Einayim, Choshen Mishpat 35:22

המבוהלים והנחפזים בדעתם והמשתגעים ביותר - נראה שכל הני פירושם הוא שאינם מתונים בעניניהם, אלא כל מעשיהן עושין במהירות ולא מבינים לסוף הענין ולתכלית המעשה, מ"ה זה ג"כ בשם שגעון ושטות יחשב:

"Those who are confused and hasty in their minds, and who are especially foolish" – It appears that the meaning of all of these is that they are not patient in their affairs. They perform all of their deeds hastily, not understanding the end of the matter and goal of the act. Therefore, this is also considered foolishness and irrationality.

21. Rabbi Shemuel de Medina (16^th century Turkey), Even haEzer 239

ולכאורה נר' שאין לנו מבוהל ונחפז גדול ממי שהוא מנוגף בקדחת עזה והרי הוא בכלל שוטה שפסול מן התורה

It appears that none are more confused and hasty than a person who is struck with powerful fever; he is a shoteh, biblically disqualified.

22. Rabbi Yechiel Michel Epstein (19^th-20^th century Lithuania), Aruch haShulchan Even haEzer 121:13

בעלי המרה השחורה שאין עושין כלום דברים של שגעון רק יושבין בעצבות ורחוקים מחבורת אנשים ואין מבקשין לאכול וכשנותנים להם לאכול אוכלין, ואין מתחילין לדבר וכששואלין אותן עונין מעט דברים, ואין מדברים דברים של שגעון, יש להתיישב אם דינם כשוטה אם לאו ולפי הסברא אין בזה סימני שטות אלא מחלת העצבות בלבד ותלוי בראיית עיני הב"ד להבין דרכו ועלילותיו.

People of black bile who do not perform any irrational acts, but only sit in sadness, far from human company, and do not seek to eat but do eat when given food, and do not initiate conversation but respond a little when addressed, and do not speak irrationally, one should analyze whether they have the status of shoteh, or not. Logically, there is no sign of irrationality here, only a disease of sadness. It depends on the court’s view, to understand his ways and their causes.

Argument 4 for Overriding Halachic Imperatives: Enabling Future Observance

23. Rabbi Natan Zvi Friedman (20^th century Israel), Netzer Mata’ai I 8:1

ואם הלימוד הוא "'וחי בהם' ולא שימות בהם", נכלל בזה גם רפואת חולי-רוח, שהרי מקרא מלא דיבר הכתוב (דברים ל) "לאהבה את ד' אלקיך, לשמוע בקולו ולדבקה בו כי הוא חייך ואורך ימיך." וכל זמן שהוא שוטה הוא פטור מכל המצוות שבתורה...

וכן מוכח דבר זה לפי הדרש האחר המובא שם ביומא בשמו של רבי שמעון בן מנסיא, שלומד דין פקוח נפש שדוחה שבת מדכתיב (שמות לא) ושמרו בני ישראל את השבת — חלל עליו שבת אחת כדי שישמור שבתות הרבה. מפורש להדיא שהיתר של פקוח נפש הוא כדי לאפשר לו קיום מצוות להבא, שאם לא נפקח עליו את הגל לא יוכל לקיים מצוות להבא. אם כן במקרה שהוא בריא בגופו אבל חולה ברוחו, והיום הוא לא יכול לקיים מצות כי שוטה פטור מכל המצוות, מצוה לחלל עליו שבת כדי שישמור שבתות הרבה. וזה פשוט וברור לפי דרשא זו.

If the deduction [teaching that we violate Shabbat to save lives] is from “’And he shall live by them’ – and not die by them,” this includes healing the emotionally ill, for Devarim 30 speaks explicitly, “to love Hashem your Gd, to listen to His voice and adhere to Him, for He is your life and the length of your days.” As long as he is a shoteh, he is exempt from all of the Torah’s mitzvot…

And so is clear within the other exegesis brought in Yoma, from Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya, who learns the law of overriding Shabbat to save lives from Shemot 31, “And the Children of Israel shall observe Shabbat” – Desecrate one Shabbat for him, so that he will observe many Shabbatot. It is explicit that the license to save lives is to enable future fulfillment of mitzvot, for if we would not overturn the debris for him, he could not fulfill mitzvot in the future. If so, in a case where he is physically healthy but emotionally ill, and today he cannot fulfill mitzvot because a shoteh is exempt from all of the mitzvot, it is a mitzvah to desecrate Shabbat for him, so that he will observe many Shabbatot. This is simple and clear, according to this exegesis.

Application to our cases

24. Rabbi Asher Weiss (21^st century Israel), Halachik Challenges in Dealing With Mental Illness, 11/24/16

https://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm/867170, 21:40-22:50

Many times in the past I paskened that girls suffering from anorexia could eat normally on Yom Kippur. Not l’shiurim [minimal amounts, below the standard of ‘eating’]. Because even though there is no direct sakkanah [danger], it’s a terrible ailment, and people, and girls, die from anorexia, to my dismay. I personally know a few families that lost children to this terrible malady. And the way to treat them is difficult, and it’s a long haul, and it takes a long time to design a plan of eating. And any interference, any interruption with that pattern could set the patient back months, or years, and ultimately could endanger the patient’s life. So it does seem to be a chiddush [novelty] to many, and some rabbonim didn’t really agree with my psak, but my psak was that girls suffering from anorexia, Yom Kippur, should eat in the normal pattern that was worked out in the personal, tailored plan for them, and they should not try to eat l’shiurim.

25. Rambam (12^th century Egypt), Mishneh Torah, Laws of the Mourner 1:1

ואין אבילות מן התורה אלא ביום ראשון בלבד שהוא יום המיתה ויום הקבורה, אבל שאר השבעה ימים אינו דין תורה...

There is no biblical law of mourning other than on the first day, if it is the day of death and burial. The rest of the seven days are not biblical law…

26. Rabbi Moshe Isserles (16^th century Poland), Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 340:5

רגיל לעשות עבירה, אין מתאבלין עליו (מרדכי סוף מ"ק).

For one who sins regularly, we do not mourn.

27. Rabbi Shlomo Luria (16^th century Poland), Yam shel Shlomo to Gittin 2:4

ועוד, איך יעלה על דעת האדם להאבילו מה שאין לבו אבל, ואין יום מר לפניו, ונהי דבאבל ממש לא חלקו רבותינו בין אוהב לשונא, הכא יש ויש לחלק.

Further: How could one think to make him mourn when his heart does not grieve and it is not a bitter day for him? Granted that for actual mourners our sages did not distinguish between friends and enemies, here there is room to distinguish.

28. Rabbi Mark Dratch (21^st century USA), Honoring Abusive Parents, Hakirah 12 (2011), pp. 111-112, 118

R. David Cohen suggests yet another reason for exempting an abused child from the obligation of honor. Asserting that there are limits to how much a person is allowed to spend in order to fulfill a positive commandment—no more than one-fifth of one’s monetary assets—he argues that emotional distress and psychological consequences are excessive personal costs that free one from an obligation. He maintains that Halakhah does not re-victimize abused children by forcing them to honor their abusers; that would be a price much too high to pay.

Furthermore, the Talmud concludes that while a child must expend time and effort in order to honor a parent, the child does not have to spend any personal resources; the obligation is fulfilled mishel av, with parental assets. While many acts of honor make demands on a child’s time, emotions, and energies, the emotional and psychological burdens imposed on an abused child in order to honor an abusive parent far surpass any appropriate mi-shel ben filial (responsibility)…

Another factor that supports exemption from mourning is that most, if not all, mourning rituals are rabbinic obligations and, in general, rabbinic rulings are sensitive to their impact—financial and personal—on those who are to observe them, providing exemptions when those obligations exact significantly adverse consequences. The Sages often did not apply their rulings be-makom tza’ar, when they caused great pain or distress; in situations of hefsed merubah, significant financial loss; and when kevod ha-beriyot, the basic dignity due to all humans, is violated. And specifically with regard to mourning, the principle is that the law follows the lenient opinion. These factors need to be considered when confronting the imposition of mourning on abused children.

29. Rabbi Asher Weiss (21^st century Israel), Minchat Asher 2:134

לדעת הרופאים המומחים בתחום זה דרך הטיפול היא שלעולם לא יחזור פעמיים על דיבור או תפילה... כאשר ברור לו כשמש שלא הגה את השם כדין ולא יצא יד"ח בברכתו האם מותר לו לאכול?...

אף אם נאמר דאסור לעבור על איסור כדי להתרפאות, שאני נידון דידן שהרי אם לא יתרפא ויחלץ מן המיצר יבטל מצוות אלה לנצח, וכל כה"ג אמרינן מוטב שיחלל שבת אחת ולא יחלל שבתות הרבה... נראה גם בני"ד דמותר לאיש יקר זה לבטל ברכות וק"ש כדי להתרפא ויכול לקיים מצוות אלה כהלכתן ודקדוקיהן.

Doctors who are expert in this field believe that the way to treat it is that he never repeat any statement or prayer… When it is clear as the Sun to him that he has not said the Name properly and he has not fulfilled his duty in his berachah, may he eat?...

Even if we would say that one may not violate a prohibition for medical purposes, our case is different, for if he would not be healed and freed from his crisis, he would violate these mitzvot forever. In any such case we say, “Better to desecrate one Shabbat, and not desecrate many Shabbatot”… It appears in our case, too, that this precious person may cancel blessings and Shema to be healed, so that he will be able to fulfill these mitzvot properly.

30. Rabbi Shlomo Wolbe (20^th century Israel), פסיכיאטריה ודת, Bishvilei haRefuah 5 (1982) pp. 79-80

www.daat.ac.il/daat/chinuch/tehnologya/volbe-psych.pdf

אמרנו, כי גם חוסר ידיעה גורם עיכוב בהבאת חולים לטיפול פסיכיאטרי. קרובים, חברים, מחנכים שמים לב כי אדם סובל, או שהוא מתנהג בצורה מוזרה, אבל אינו עולה על דעתם כי לפניהם מקרה של מחלת נפש. לא פעם מיעצים לצעיר מדוכא שיתתתן בהקדם. לפעמים באמת עצה זו נכונה היא, אך לא במקרה של דכאון מאני וכדומה. רק פסיכיאטר יכול להכריע בזה. דוגמה אחרת: קרה לי פעמיים, שבאו אלי תלמידים במצב של פניקה, ותוך בכי חזק התלוננו כי ״אבדה אמונתם״: זה הי' התקף שיצופרני והם היו זקוקים לטיפול דחוף... אני מניח כי מה שקרה לי פעמיים, קורה גם לרבנים ולמחנכים אחרים, שאינם יודעים פרק בפסיכיאטרי', ונתאר לעצמנו, אם במקרה כזה היו מנסים להרגיע את החולה ולחזקו באמונה — ובדאי ייווכחו לדעת מאוחר יותר שלא הצליחו בזה, אבל בינתיים עבר זמן יקר והחולה בא לטיפול באיחור שיכול להיות גורלי...

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

We have said that ignorance causes a delay in connecting the ill with psychiatric treatment. Relatives, friends, educators notice that someone is suffering, or behaving oddly, but it doesn’t enter their mind that they are seeing a case of emotional illness. More than occasionally, they advise a depressed youth to marry early; sometimes this is good advice, but not in a case of manic depression and the like. Only a psychiatrist can determine this. Or another case: It happened to me twice that students came to me in a panic, and while crying powerfully complained that “they have lost their faith”: This was a schizophrenic episode, and they needed urgent care… I assume that what happened to me twice also happens to other rabbis and educators, who do not know anything about psychiatry. We can imagine that in such a case they would try to calm the ill person and strengthen his faith – and certainly, they would come to know later that they did not succeed, but in the interim precious time would be lost, and the ill person could come to treatment with a fateful delay…

These problems are shared by the observant community and the psychiatrists. There is an urgent need to organize courses for active rabbis and educators, with the goal of spreading basic knowledge of the symptoms of neurosis and psychosis and their modes of treatment with general guidelines, so that they will know to direct ill people to doctors early on. Basic knowledge would remove many prejudices!