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.

Read More

Lakewood rabbi admits to plot to kidnap Orthodox Jewish man to force religious divorce

Asbury Park Press    David Wax, the rabbi accused of plotting to kidnap an Orthodox Jewish man to force him to give his wife a religious divorce, and whose case led to similar charges against other rabbis, pleaded guilty in federal court Tuesday, officials said.

David Wax, 51, of Lakewood pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit kidnapping in a case that dates back to 2010, authorities said. David and his wife, Judy Wax, were arrested and charged with paying to have an Israeli national — Yisrael Meir Briskman — kidnapped and beaten in order to force him to give his estranged wife a religious divorce.

During his plea Tuesday before U.S. District Judge Freda L. Wolfson, David Wax implicated Mendel Epstein, a Brooklyn rabbi who has a home in Lakewood, along with several other men who were charged last fall in a similar conspiracy.

According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the charges against Judy Wax still are pending. [...]

Read More

For Orthodox Parents, Time To Talk Sex by Rabbi Mendel Horowitz

Forward   Recent articles in the Forward have raised the issue of Orthodox Judaism’s so-called repression of sexuality. Although I thought the articles were not particularly respectful of Orthodoxy’s moral codes, they do indeed raise a point. Arguably bad mannered, they are undoubtedly on to something.

This past summer, an article in The New York Times, presumably overlooked by many Orthodox Jews, examined the propriety of allowing teenage children to be sexually active at home. The author, who admits to being childless, suggests that the ideal attitude of parents be a “well-mixed cocktail of caution and tolerance.”

Continuing the conversation, the online magazine Slate lent support for a suggestive approach by reporting how Dutch parents enjoy more open dialogue with their children about sex than American parents do, all while “demonstrating acceptance and respect for their kids’ relationships.” Such parental candor is proposed as grounds for the low rates of teenage pregnancy in the Netherlands.

The discussion is not irrelevant to Orthodox Jews. While they will probably not consider in-house licentiousness — and I am not suggesting they should — having more open dialogue with children about their personal lives may help to promote more fruitful relationships. When it comes to sex, acceptance and respect are said to correlate with safer, healthier lifestyles.

Showing young people that we trust them to act responsibly seems to increase the likelihood of their responsible behavior. Allowing sex at home need not be a green light for promiscuity but can be a red light for undeclared, unpredictable, unsafe activity. Permission sometimes helps to prevent.

For Orthodox Jews for whom premarital sex (and even masturbation) is forbidden, the mere mention of sexuality is almost equally taboo. While some secular counterparts, too, may be prudish, devout parents’ inhibitions are complicated by immovable religious mores. With procreation a positive religious act, explicit regulations govern its procedure. The line between inappropriate words and less appropriate deeds is thin. Seeing themselves as Jews first and parents second, some Orthodox fathers and mothers propagate ignorance and insecurity by avoiding the conversation entirely. With no consent for action, many Orthodox teenagers have no vocabulary even for talking about sex. [...]

Read More

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.

Read More

Nicholas Winton: Saved 669 Jewish children from the Nazis

Wikipedia   Winton was born in Hampstead, London, the son of German Jewish parents who had moved to London in 1907.[5] Their family name was Wertheim, but they subsequently changed it to Winton in an effort at integration.[6] The family eventually converted to Christianity, and Winton was baptised.[7]

Just before Christmas 1938, Winton was about to travel to Switzerland for a skiing holiday, when he decided instead to travel to Prague to help his friend Martin Blake, who was involved in Jewish refugee work,^[5] and had called him asking for his help.^[9] There he single-handedly established an organization to aid children from Jewish families at risk from the Nazis. He set up an office at a dining room table in his hotel in Wenceslas Square.^[10] In November 1938, shortly after Kristallnacht, the House of Commons approved a measure that would permit the entry of refugees younger than 17 years old into Britain, if they had a place to stay and a warranty of £50 was deposited for a ticket for their eventual return to their country of origin.<sup>[11][...]

Winton kept quiet about his humanitarian exploits for many years, until his wife Grete found a detailed scrapbook in their attic in 1988.[20] It contained lists of the children, including their parents' names, and the names and addresses of the families that took them in. By sending letters to these addresses, 80 of "Winton's children" were found in Britain.[20] The world found out about his work in 1988 during an episode of the BBC television programme That's Life! [21] when he was invited as a member of the audience. At one point Winton's scrapbook was shown, and his achievements explained. The host of the programme, Esther Rantzen, asked whether any in the audience owed their lives to Winton, and, if so, to stand – more than two dozen people surrounding Winton rose and applauded.[22]</sup> 

Read More

Schlesinger Twins: Paul Kendall of The Telegraph describes the injustice to Beth and her sons

The Telegraph ....Thanks to an Austrian family court judge, who has awarded full custody of the children to Mrs Schlesinger’s estranged husband, the petite Cambridge graduate has not put her boys to bed at night-time for almost three years. And yet her former partner, Michael, was deemed so violent and unpredictable at the time of their separation that social workers recommended not only that Mrs Schlesinger be granted sole custody, but also that, on the occasions the father had access to the twins, he never be left alone with them.

The alteration to that original decision has been described by one British MP as “one of the worst miscarriages of justice” he has experienced in nearly 25 years as a politician, and by another as a “blight on the Austrian judicial system”. It has raised serious questions about the impartiality of the judge on the case and hints at a sinister conspiracy that spans both the Austrian Landesgericht (Court of Appeal) and the social services.

More worrying still, it appears that the twins’ development is suffering in their father’s care. Only recently out of nappies, the boys, Samuel and Benjamin, are still unable to talk, three weeks shy of their fifth birthdays.

“It’s like a living grief,” says Mrs Schlesinger, sitting on the edge of a couch in her front room, opposite shelves stacked with puzzles, soft toys and sticker books. “I’m mourning my children, but it’s kind of a perverse mourning because they’re still alive. I know they’re alive and I’m so close to them – I’m just down the road – and yet I can’t see them or play any meaningful role in their lives.”[...]

In normal circumstances, Mr Schlesinger’s abuse of his doctor’s credentials and attempt to have his wife committed under false pretences – thus separating her from her children – would have excluded all possibility of him ever gaining custody. And, in fact, the case judge, Susanne Göttlicher, rejected an application by Mr Schlesinger for custody in April 2011.

But, just three months later, Judge Göttlicher reversed her decision and placed the children into his full-time care.[...]
The decision is regarded as so inexplicable, in fact, that Mr Stringer and others suspect the judge has been unduly influenced. It is a matter of record that, very soon after Mr Schlesinger was evicted from the flat, he sought the help of a judge from the Court of Appeal, Konstanze Thau, who is a friend of the family. Judge Göttlicher has admitted that she has discussed the case with Judge Thau.

“At the very minimum, there appears to have been irregular and unprofessional behaviour,” says Mr Stringer.

Ivan Lewis, MP for Bury South, the neighbouring constituency to Mr Stringer, who has taken a close interest in the case, goes further.

“There is no doubt that there has been inappropriate intervention in this case by another judge who is a personal friend of the father,” he says. “It’s following that intervention that the judge on the case started making decisions that were incredibly supportive of the father.[...]

Read More

Brooklyn District Attorney. - Is selling out to Satmar part of the job?

Verdict Justia by Prof. Marci Hamilton Here we are at the end of Child Abuse Prevention Month and Sexual Assault Awareness Month, and let’s just say that the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community as a whole is not going to receive any justice awards soon, though two brave individuals should.

First, there is the specter in Brooklyn of a sweetheart plea deal for the criminal who threw bleach on the face of the bravest advocate of sex abuse survivors in the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community. Second, at the end of last month, there was a veritable celebration in honor of the prison release of the criminal who tried to bribe a young woman and her boyfriend with $500,000 to drop charges against ultra-Orthodox molester Rabbi Nechemya Weberman.

The Sweetheart Plea Deal for a Vicious Assault

Former Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes repeatedly let down the victims of child sex abuse in the Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox Jewish communities. He actually lost his job because of it. The man who replaced him, Ken Thompson, ran on a platform of protecting the children who were abandoned by the Hynes administration. He started off strong by dropping the charges against Sam Kellner, who was unfairly charged with extortion when in fact he was trying to obtain justice for his son, who was sexually abused. He made many points then. Earlier this week, he backtracked.

The fight to protect victims of abuse in religious communities is difficult and daunting, and those inside the community can pay the steepest price. One of those men in the ultra-Orthodox universe is Rabbi Nuchum Rosenberg, who has persistently ministered to the abused in his community, forced the issue into the public square through a call-in show and blog, and proudly stood in support of legislative reform in Albany for them. His dogged persistence has created a wedge in the community for justice, and survivors sorely in need of support have started to speak up.

Tempers were running high December of 2012 following the trial and guilty verdict of sick molester and esteemed counselor Rabbi Nechemya Weberman.

Rosenberg had been a victim of violence before, but the day after the Weberman verdict, Meilech Schnitzler approached Rosenberg and threw bleach in his face. But for the quick action of a person who threw a cup of water on Rosenberg’s face, he might be blind today.

In a move that has sent chills through the ultra-Orthodox survivor community, Thompson cut a deal with Schnitzler that will hardly deter future violence against the survivors’ advocates. Instead of serving the years in prison the crime should have earned, Schnitzler confessed to throwing the bleach on Rosenberg and received nothing but unsupervised probation. To quote Rosenberg, “Probation in our circles is a joke.” [...]

Read More