On Deviation, Expertise and Values ​​- Response to Prof. Yoram Yuval's article, “They Do Not Deviate”, Shabbat P. P. Akef - Continued Column (Column 26)


In the column the previous I commented on Prof. Yoram Yuval's article in the Shabbat supplement of Makor Rishon P. due to this year (XNUMX). You should also see the discussion that developed in the talkbacks below my post.

My response to Prof. Yuval's was published in an abbreviated version in the Shabbat supplement P. Ra'a (together with More comments Interesting that they are definitely all worth reading [1]). Here are my words printed there:

On deviation, expertise and values

(Response to Prof. Yoram Yuval's article, "They do not deviate", Shabbat supplement P. Akev)

Prof. Yuval Luca's article has a serious mix of values ​​and facts. It makes sense to point out that this distinction was a candle at the feet of his late grandfather mentioned in the article, and it is a pity that he ignores it.

His remarks stand on three pillars: 1. A model for a great relationship and a professional. 2. The psychiatric definition of sexual deviation (inability to love an entire person). Scientific assertions: Homosexuality is not the result of choice but of an organic background, it is very difficult to change and dangerous to try. Already here says in a nutshell: 3. The model proposed by Yuval is incorrect (see articles at noon G) and also irrelevant to the discussion here. 1. The psychiatric definition also does not pertain to discussion. 2. These professional questions are irrelevant to the discussion. I will now detail.

Once I was sitting in a kollel in Bnei Brak and a student approached me and asked if glass was liquid or solid. I told him that in relation to the laws of Shabbat glass is solid, although physicists tend to define it as a liquid for their professional needs. And the parable, if psychiatry defines sexual perversion as the inability to love an entire person - their shame. But why should halacha or morality adopt the professional definition and apply it on the normative level as well? Moreover, definitions are not an empirical finding, so the professional has no advantage over the layman in relation to them. Psychiatrists can and should define their concepts for professional needs, but that has nothing to do with the normative question. Michel Foucault wrote that the psychiatric diagnosis is saturated with value assumptions. Despite being one of the forerunners of postmodernism in my eyes, he was right about it. Well, twice a day even a standing clock indicates the correct time.

The psychiatrist can at most determine the origins of homosexuality. Does it have a genetic, environmental, or other background. He can determine if it can be treated and in what ways, and what the consequences of each treatment are. These are all professional determinations, and assuming that the scientific knowledge exists (and it is certainly not complete in this case, which in my opinion is not emphasized enough in Yuval's words), the expert can give them answers. But the question of whether this is a deviation and how it should be treated is a matter of a normative definition and not of a professional determination (see the above articles).

Two more comments:

A. As a small expert in psychiatry, I doubt the explanation suggested by Yuval for a change in psychiatry's attitude toward homosexuality. In my opinion, this is mainly a change in values ​​and not scientific-factual. A significant part of society today believes that the phenomenon is not morally negative (even the little one agrees with this) and therefore does not see it as a deviation. Psychiatry here is dragged down by social values, and not the other way around. Think of kleptomania. Let us assume for the purpose of the discussion that it has genetic origins and that it cannot be changed (converted). Does this mean that kleptomania is not a deviation? It is forbidden and harmful to steal, so it is reasonable to define kleptomaniac as a pervert. This is despite the fact that even there a tendency to steal does not mean that the person actually steals (as Yuval explained about homosexuality), and even there it cannot be treated and has genetic or organic sources (as I assumed for the purpose of the discussion). The difference between kleptomania and homosexuality is that most psychiatrists today believe that it is permissible and harmless to be homosexual, while theft is forbidden and harmful in their eyes. It is clear to us that these are values ​​and not facts.

B. Yuval writes that "every educated religious man" knows that in an intensive care unit can lie a completely dead person whose heart is beating. I think I'm a pretty educated person (and also quite religious), and I really do not know that. Moreover, even he himself does not know it. It has nothing to do with education (though to religion maybe yes), ostrich because the definition of death and life is normative and not clinical. The doctor can determine, if at all, what functions exist in such a situation, and what is the chance of returning from it to a normal life. But he can not determine whether such a person is alive or dead, and certainly not whether he can donate organs (which in my personal opinion is permissible and even obligatory on him even if he is considered a living person. See articles in the field of Kt). These are all value and not factual questions. Various doctors who refuse to accept this are another indication that a mixture of values ​​and facts appears not only in the laymen.

Prof. Yuval responded to this on the website that added a general response to all of us. A specific response to my remarks (and also to Dr. Azgad Gould) is raised On his site And this is his language:

In honor of Rabbi Dr. Michael Avraham

The Higher Institute of Torah

Bar-Ilan University

Yours sincerely, Rabbi Shalom and Bracha,

First, know that the undersigned greatly appreciates you and your work. I am not in the world of Torah to the extent that allows me to appreciate your Torah and halakhic work, but neurobiology and the little philosophy I understand was enough for me to greatly enjoy your book "Science of Freedom", which I think is an original and beautiful work of thought, and a great contribution to the field.

Compared to my enjoyment of your book, it's quite clear from your unsatisfactory response from "they do not deviate" articles. That's why I'm happy about some of the improvements I've made to myself here, in order to try to convince you of the righteousness of my words, and if not to convince, then at least start building a bridge between your mountain and my mountain. Let's start with the things I agree with you:

I agree with you twice (and not twice a day) about Michelle Foucault. Both with regard to postmodernism, which I also believe is empty text, and with regard to its determination on psychiatric diagnostics, in which, unfortunately, he is very right. But I believe, and I am not sure that here you agree with me, that it is impossible otherwise: it is doomed to psychiatric diagnosis, by its very nature, that it will not be able to break away from value assumptions, at least not in the foreseeable future. And so what the philosopher can afford - to separate a sharp separation between values ​​and facts, the psychiatrist can not afford. And in particular he cannot delude himself and the public that there exists - or can exist - such complete separation in his field. I'll get back to that later.

I also agree with your sharp analysis the question of the halakhic status of the man lying in intensive care when his mind has ceased and will not function again, while his heart is beating, and I even learned something new from the things you wrote in chapter headings on the subject in your response. Moreover: I am glad that your final conclusion - that it is obligatory to donate this man's organs - is the same as mine. I hope that you will continue to take advantage of your status and influence among Bnei Torah in order to change the ignorant - and even infidel - attitude of some of the leaders of ultra-Orthodox and national-religious Judaism to the issue.

But what you can do about the distinction between "living" and "dead", you can not, in my opinion, do about the distinction between "perverted" and "not perverted." I will explain my words: First, contrary to what you write, the doctor and more how to determine whether a person is alive or dead. I know this first hand. When I worked in the inpatient department as a specialist doctor, a sad part of my job was to determine, at first light, the deaths of the patients who died during the night. I still remember, to this day, the many faces I covered with a sheet in preparation for the arrival of the domestic worker, who came to take them to the beginning of their last journey.

And yet I recognize that you are right when you say that the halakhic determination of who is “alive” and who is “dead” can be different from the medical determination, and it is not deviant in spite of it. But the implicit conclusion from your response, that the psychiatric definition of deviation and the religious definition (and certainly the socio-religious definition) of deviation are also unrelated, does not in my opinion reflect reality.

Let's take the kleptomania, which you brought up as a test case. Kleptomania is not a deviation. Is a mental disorder. The term deviation is reserved in psychiatry, as in street language, for abnormal, not to say repulsive, behavior in a sexual context. I hope you are not trying to use the mathematical, and value-neutral, definition of deviation from the norm (a.k.a. standard deviation), in order to legitimize the creep of the terrible value attitude of ultra-Orthodox Judaism institutionalized to homosexuality.

Psychiatry deals not only with "behavior" but with subjective phenomena; As you wrote, and I'm glad that here you agree with me, the kleptomaniac does not have to actually steal to be a kleptomaniac, and the homosexual does not have to lie to a male to be gay. But here ends the analogy between the parable and the parable. The kleptomaniac harms and harms others in his behavior, and therefore his behavior is wrong (not deviant), and society is allowed to defend against it. Moreover: if he steals valuables, his mental disorder may not stand up to him in court, and it will be taken into account only at the sentencing arguments stage. I think both you and I agree that homosexuals are not criminals, and if they are not lying to a male - it is not clear to me how they differ from all other Jewish men, who also face the Torah's prohibitions on expressing their sexuality.

I return to the issue of the inability to completely separate values ​​from facts and facts in psychiatry. The Catholic Christian believes with complete faith that the communion bread he received and ate during Mass became in his mouth the true flesh of Messiah. It is a false thought for all intents and purposes, and it deviates from the definition of psychosis because of a social and value norm - hundreds of millions of people believe in it. This is a trivial example, but psychiatry, when it comes to defining, diagnosing and treating subjective phenomena, gropes deeply in the dark about the biological-factual basis for these phenomena.

I would be happy to be able to put my profession on the same pedestals that physics stands on, but it will not happen in my lifetime, and lest never. As you know better from me, a fundamental philosophical question underlying this issue, which I think has no satisfactory answer at present, is the question of psychophysical causality: is it one-way or two-way or does it not apply to the issue at all? My grandfather whom you mentioned dealt, like you, with the question of psychophysical causality, and even believed that there was no and could not be a solution to it (Ignorbimus - we do not know and we will never know). Without pretending and without trying to get into the thick of it here, I actually support the opinion of his student, Prof. Yosef Neumann, who thought that today it has no solution, but tomorrow it is possible (Ignoramus - we do not know, but we may know someday).

Finally, I want to return from the heights of philosophy to the dark world of religious homosexuals. I wrote my article following the words of your colleague Rabbi Levinstein, who excommunicated these good people and saddened them. At the end of the day the practical question that interests me, and to which I have not found a direct and relevant reference in your response (and I hope such a reference), is whether there is a way to let religious homosexuals live and start families in religious Zionist communities. Once it comes to people who are not lying to a male, this is in my humble opinion a more social question than it is halakhic. Here, in my opinion, you, I, and all our readers should remember the saying of your colleague, Albert Einstein: "It is easier to crack an opaque than to crack a prejudice."


Yoram Yuval

And here is my reaction here to his words:

Dear Prof. Yuval, Hello.

First of all in my honor you enjoyed my numbers and even expressed your appreciation here. It is definitely not easy for me.

Indeed, I did not agree with what you said in the article, although I can not say that I did not enjoy it. As usual, things are well written and in a clear and beautiful way. And yet, as stated, even after the “edge of improvements” (as you put it), I do not agree with them, and I will try to explain here why.

If we agree on Foucault (I mean the second point), then we have come to a first common conclusion that psychiatry is saturated with value assumptions and is largely based on them. It also has a factual dimension of course, but the bottom line almost always involves value and cultural questions.

By the very fact that you agreed that this is the case, I do not see how you claim that the relationship between a rabbi and a psychiatrist is subject to a model of the relationship between a professional and a rabbi. Even if psychiatry does not see it as a deviation, you still agree that it is a value proposition. So why should the rabbi accept this as a professional determination? He can of course decide he gets it, but it is his halakhic decision and it has nothing to do with professional powers. As for the model of a rabbi versus a professional, you have already referred to me in my first response To the article I devoted to the matter At noon m.

You then also added that it is inevitable (that psychiatry will mix values ​​with facts). Although I am not a professional, I would still say that I do not agree with it. Correct me if I am wrong, but psychiatry could have focused on facts (in the broadest sense, i.e. including theories that explain them, as in the natural sciences), and nothing more. For example, she could have been content with regularly what is the origin of homosexuality (for me this also includes wild psychoanalytic speculations as you wish, as long as these are theories that try to explain the phenomenon itself without a value charge), how it develops (ibid.), Where it is prevalent, whether and how This can be changed, and what is the price of any form of change (or "conversion" not on us) such and such. These are questions that deal with facts and their interpretation, and are therefore legitimate scientific and professional questions. It seems to me that all of these questions are not charged with any value charge. On the other hand, the question of whether it is a deviation or not, must be left to society and every person within it to determine.

Of course if you also make the concept of "deviation" my fact, as a deviation from the statistical norm ("neutral mathematical definition", in your language) then psychiatry can determine this professionally, but you have already agreed in your remarks here that this is not the case. On the other hand, you come back here and correct my usefulness in the term deviation, and I think in doing so you are again trying to dictate a psychiatric definition for everyday use. In the common usage in our districts deviation is a strong (innate?) Tendency to criminal action (such as the example of the kleptomania we agreed on, apart from the term “deviation”). One way or another, this is a definition, which is why Rabbi Levinstein and my little self (who is very far from his views on most things) agree that there is no room for taking professional authority over it. What is the concrete content of the concept, and does it include homosexuality, I personally tend to think not (because in my opinion deviation is a tendency to immoral activity, and not a tendency to criminal activity in the religious sense). I think that Rabbi Levinstein's view is yes (because in his opinion a tendency to criminal activity in the religious sense is also a deviation, probably because he identifies halakhah with morality, which I strongly reject and thereby join the late tangle).

Bottom line, I see no reason in the world for the American Psychiatric Association or any other professional association to determine for all of us what should be treated and what should not, and what is a deviation and what should not. This should be left to society, to each person for himself, and of course also to his personal psychiatrist (as opposed to their professional association). That is to say: society will decide if there is something that is harmful to others (kleptomania, pedophilia, etc.), and then it must be treated even if the patient has not expressed a desire for it (in extreme cases enough). In cases where there is no social harm, the person himself will decide whether he needs / wants treatment or not. And of course the psychiatrist he turns to (and not the association) can say he is unwilling to treat this matter because of his own values. In any case, I see no room for collective decisions of a professional association on such issues.

I think this picture also clarifies why in my opinion there is definitely and is an escape from introducing value dimensions into psychiatry. To the best of my understanding in this model we avoid this, so in my opinion the psychiatrist can certainly make a distinction between values ​​and facts, just like the physicist or philosopher. Since I'm not an expert, I have no doubt that a mistake can be made in these words, and I would be happy if you would correct me.

The same is true of the status of a person lying in intensive care when his heart is beating and his mind has stopped working. Opponents in my opinion, who in my eyes are wrong and harmful, are not "ignorant," in your words. After all, these are not facts or knowledge of any kind, and therefore I oppose the use of this term with respect to them. In my opinion they are morally wrong and that is why they are harmful. Again, it is very important for me to be careful about distinguishing between values ​​and facts. Precisely for this reason the physician has no added value in relation to this question.

The fact that you mentioned in your remarks here that in practice this statement is handed over to doctors is nothing but a delegation of authority, and nothing more. This is not a professional determination. Do not mix values ​​and facts again. Factually hand over the decision to determine death to doctors (as you described about yourself in your hat as a doctor), but that does not mean it is a factual-professional decision. This is done for convenience and efficiency only, and in fact it is delegating the powers of the legislature to the doctor only to shorten and streamline the process. Determine death, even though it is a value determination). Deciding what functions that person has in such a situation and what his chances are of returning to life is a professional decision. The decision whether in such a situation he is considered dead - is a pure value decision. She has nothing to do with the facts. Contrary to what you wrote, the halakhic decision regarding life and death is not "different from the medical decision." Ostrich that there is no such thing as a "medical decision" regarding life or death. This is a pure value decision (as described above). It is indeed true that a legal decision can be different from a halakhic one, since these two are different normative (rather than factual) categories.

We do fully agree that homosexuals are not criminals. But we certainly do not agree that homosexuals (who practically exercise their tendency) are not criminals. We agree that their actions are not a crime, that is, a moral offense (I mentioned that there are those in the religious camp who think otherwise, I am not one of them), since they do not harm others. But halakhic and Torah are criminals, so from a religious and halakhic point of view they are criminals in the same sense of a murderer or robber (but they are also morally criminal). The degree of guilt is another matter of course. This is where the degree of choice and control they have comes in and the degree of awareness that this is a prohibition (a secular person does not consider this an illegal act of course). Just like a kleptomaniac in front of a regular thief.

It is important for me to note that with regard to the treatment of homosexuals, I am even more liberal than you expected me to be. For me, even those who practically realize the matter are entitled to ordinary human treatment in the community (unless he waves it and preaches to it, which is a sermon for delinquency according to the law). A person who is a criminal in his personal and private sphere is a legitimate member of the community, especially if he is in a situation that is so difficult to deal with. I have written about this extensively in the past, and you are welcome to see for example  HERE and also HERE. You wondered why things did not appear in my response in the newspaper, this is because I commented there only on the arguments you raised in your article and not on the substance of the matter. If you see the beginning of my longer response in the column the previous My site, you will find that I have written explicitly that I agree with most of your practical conclusions. Unfortunately the system did not allow me to extend the response in the newspaper. That's why I made "some improvements" in the last two columns here on the site and in the discussion that followed (in talkbacks).

And I will end with a mimara you quoted as “my colleague”, as you put it (I am even embarrassed to mention my name in one fell swoop with such a scientific giant). It is indeed difficult to change or crack a prejudice. But the big question is whether in the Didan case this is indeed a prejudice, or whether it is a different value position (every value position, including yours and of course mine, is a prejudice in a sense). The taboo and social attitude in the religious society towards homosexuality (which in my opinion has nothing to do with the prohibition, since prohibitions on crafts on Shabbat are no less severe and do not receive such treatment) are indeed a prejudice in my opinion (because factual assumptions are made, not just values). But the very view of homosexuality as a prohibition is not a prejudice but a halakhic norm (even if unfortunate in my opinion). The attitude to such norms (as to any norm) of course depends on the beliefs of each of us. I personally have faith in the giver of the Torah, that if he forbade there is probably something problematic about it (which in my poverty I did not get to notice). I bend my mind to his command. But since these are questions of faith, I would not want psychiatry to take positions, and certainly not resolute ones, about them (just as with what happens to communion in the mouths of our Catholic cousins), and here we are again back to the possibility and need to disconnect psychiatry from arrays. And about this our rabbis have already said (ibid., Ibid.): Give to Caesar what to Caesar…


Michi Avraham

[1] I must say that together with two of Yoav Sorek's articles, the one published in the same supplement two weeks earlier and the one published on the Shabbat supplement website (p. See), this is the most intelligent and relevant discussion known to me in the press or at all on this subject. In my honor to take part in it.

8 Thoughts on “On Deviation, Expertise and Values ​​- Response to Prof. Yoram Yuval's article,“ They Do Not Deviate ”, Shabbat P. P. Akef - Continuation Column (Column 26)”

  1. rival:

    First of all, I would like to point out that I really enjoyed and also learned from the correspondence and the discourse, its depth and even the conclusions that you both agree on in principle.

    However, still do not feel I understand why you insist on defining deviation as a tendency to delinquency and not just deviation from the norm? The degree of deviation from the norm that requires intervention or treatment is indeed valuable, but the very deviation from the normal is legitimate.
    I apologize for bringing Foucault back into the discourse, but in The Madness of the Age of Reason, Foucault addressed exactly that and I understand we will reach the same conclusions and the same theme of distinguishing between facts (the very deviation from the normal curve) and the values ​​(we all deviate Or cataloging is valuable)

    with gratitude

    Hello opponent.
    There is no impediment to defining deviation in this way. Definitions are a matter for you. But I think this is not the accepted definition and certainly not what Rabbi Levinstein intended and which we are discussing here. Therefore, we (Yoram Yuval and I) agreed not to define it in a mathematical and neutral way. In everyday use “deviation” is a phrase with a clear negative connotation. According to your suggestion, Rabbi Levinstein simply said something trivial and worthless, so why have a discussion about it ?! There is no dispute that factual homosexuality characterizes a minority in the population. The debate (with Rabbi Levinstein) is about the proper treatment of it (here too Yuval and I agree, except for the terminology and relevance of the professional authority for discussion). One way or another, all the debates here are on the value plane and not the factual-mathematical one.
    I did not understand your comment on Foucault. After all, we ourselves have returned Foucault to the discourse (after agreeing on the negative general attitude towards it), for here he is really right (standing clock, etc.). We both agreed with Foucault's statement (in the book you mentioned) that psychiatric diagnosis is based on value and cultural assumptions. But I think that's exactly why the psychiatrist can not wear his professional hat in an argument here (after all, these are values ​​and not facts).
    This (and only this) is the debate between us right now. A completely identical debate is about the relevance of a physician's professional authority with respect to determining the moment of death. But this is the same argument itself.

  2. certain:
    The moral problem with all incest prohibitions, is that the person not only sins himself but helps and strengthens his partner in the offense.

    When the forbidden relationship is institutionalized and visible to many without shame - then the dimension of the negative example is added to the many and the public statement that this is permissible, a statement that has a destructive effect on boys who are still in a state of doubt, and a negative example can offend the prohibition.

    All of Israel is intertwined, and the actions of the individual have implications for the whole rule. May we all be privileged to be sanctified and improved one by one in what he needs improvement, and thus to rule the whole world to the right.

    Regards, S.C. Levinger
    By doing so you have turned any prohibition of any kind into a moral offense. After all, according to the parable of the hole in the ship, even offenses that do not involve another person actually affect his fate. So according to this all Torah is morality.
    If you do not explain that the prohibition on its own is moral, it does not make sense to talk about it being moral because of its dimension of failure and harm. This is a tribal tautology.

  3. certain:

    To Rabbi Avraham Neru - Hello,

    Indeed, all transgressions of God's will are immoral, we owe it to the honor of the Creator, both from being the 'owner of the house' over the world, and from gratitude for all his grace with us.

    At the same time several incest prohibitions, which elevate us to building a healthy family life, dominated not only by instinct, but by the values ​​of love, loyalty and kindness, by virtue of which father and mother benefit each other and plant endless love and devotion.

    But apart from the honor of the Creator, there is also an elementary duty of respect towards the parents. How much despair is caused to parents when their child falls into a life whose whole being is a severe prohibition, a life in which there is no chance of establishing a 'Blessed Generation Blessed' that will continue the path of Judaism?

    A person who knows how much his parents invested in him and how much they gave their lives to bring him into the world to raise him and educate him - is obligated to make every effort to get out of where he fell.

    Just as parents often go through difficult treatments, both physically and mentally, to have the privilege of hugging a child, and if they do not succeed in this treatment, try another treatment, and do not give up - now it is up to the child who had the same amount to invest so that his parents benefit. Jewish girl'. This is the minimum he can repay them for all their favors towards him.

    Even therapists who are not sure that anyone can change, say there are successes. Even when the homosexual tendency is strong and distinct, which is then very difficult to change - says Dr. Zvi Mozes (in his article, 'Is Treatment of Reversal Tendencies psychologically effective', on the 'Root' website), that people are very determined and have a strong faith, can start a family, with the help of Proper professional care.

    Regards, S.C. Levinger

    Adoption and surrogacy, besides not solving the problem of prohibition, involve grief for the parents from whom the child was taken. Increasing the demand for adoption for same-sex couples will inevitably lead to a trend of welfare services to increase the 'supply' by overusing adoption instead of striving to leave the child in the hands of his parents.

    All the more so as 'surrogacy' is an exploitation of the terrible distress of families. No reasonable woman will go through the suffering of pregnancy and childbirth, so that a child will be given to strangers, but instead she is in terrible financial or mental distress, and who knows if criminal organizations and corrupt regimes are not involved?

    As I wrote, all of this may be true and yet it is an irrelevant argument to the discussion. The question is what is the nature of the prohibitions themselves, and not whether there are ancillary moral aspects.
    Beyond that are some notes on the body of things:
    It is the Creator who created man with his inclinations. I'm not sure I see a moral obligation on man to change that.
    2. Parental frustration may exist, but there may be cases where it does not exist. What then? Azla her moral duty? Beyond that, although I have not checked but I think there are such couples who are raising children who are guarding the tombs. I think "there is no chance" is too strong a phrase.
    3. Man did not "fall" but "got caught."
    4. All of these arguments speak of the duty to change (if possible), but do not point to a moral problem in the very act.
    5. A person does not have to change his lifestyle because it bothers his parents. It is known from the Riki that was quoted in Rama Yod that a son does not have to obey his parents in choosing a spouse, and I expanded on this in my articles on honoring parents.
    6. There are many therapists who report failures and terrible damage. I did not go into the question of whether the treatment could not work, but you described the situation in a way that was too rosy. The requirement for a person to take such risks should be on a very strong basis. And again, on the religious level there is certainly such a requirement, but to see it as a moral obligation I am very doubtful. No gratitude obliges a person to enter into such terrible suffering and mental risks. That the parents will go into conversion therapies that will change their minds and get rid of the frustration, it is much easier and more desirable (moral, not halakhic).
    7. The last comments are a very one-sided and biased description (and I use very gentle language). It is clear to you that if you were not actually opposed and to this situation you would not see it that way. Surrogacy is an agreement between older people. And whatever may arise from it, one should strive and prevent it. It does not delay the act itself. Giving charity can also cause people to run out of money and they may steal. Yigal Amir was said to have a religious belief that could lead to murder and extreme acts. Is this why the religious faith should be given up?

    As a rule, when you raise all kinds of arguments and for some reason everyone to the last point in the same direction, I would suspect and re-examine my judgment.
    Without going into a detailed discussion of all the points you raised - I will make only one comment about the risks discussed in conversion therapies.

    First of all, it should be understood that not all treatment offered is appropriate, and there are treatments that may be suitable for someone and can be destructive to another, just like with drugs, where what helps one can lead the other to death gates, so as in medicine everything should be done by another specialist psychologist Careful diagnosis and careful adjustment of the nature of the treatment to the person.

    And secondly, one should be aware that science is quite groping in the dark when it comes to the whole issue of homosexuality (by the way, a large part of the darkness is voluntary, consciously blocking any attempt to find a way out, because the experience itself is a heresy for legitimizing homosexual identity).

    One of the major risks attributed to attempts at healing is the fear of total despair due to the failure of the treatment attempt. However, when you know in advance that these are innovative and experimental treatments - the level of expectations is very moderate, and accordingly the disappointment of failure does not collapse the person. And understand that what has not 'gone' at the moment in this way, may succeed tomorrow in a slightly different direction, 'and if not tomorrow then the day after tomorrow' 🙂

    On the one hand, we must start from the starting point of belief that God has placed a great challenge on humanity to find a cure for this tendency that is contrary to the Torah. On the other hand, knowing that the road ahead is long and we have not yet found a clear solution.

    This is the case with all of humanity's problems, when striving to find a cure - advanced. Sometimes decades pass, sometimes hundreds, and even more, and yet do not despair and long and continue to search in every possible direction, until suddenly a breakthrough comes.

    Regards, S.C. Levinger
    First, these are reports from expert psychologists.
    Second, as long as they have not found treatment and everything is in a fog as you say, then what do you expect from the man? To be moral and not to be gay without effective treatment?

    מה לעשות?

    A. Look for solutions.
    Consulting professionals and reading professional literature, can bring a person new insights into his personality and the causes of his problem, from which he may find new solutions on his own, perhaps even directions that experts have not thought of.

    B. Make the difficulty a challenge.
    Just as people enjoy trying to crack a vague issue in the Gemara or in the 'Edges'. Here the guy got a fascinating challenge - to crack the riddle of his life. Ask yourself what arouses his love and passions and what calms them? Identify what are the qualities that evoke his love for his peers? And perhaps there is also a woman with such qualities that may also arouse his love and later perhaps even thaw the stagnation in the 'extra-gender' sexual attraction.

    third. Also develop some feelings of compassion towards the 'straights'
    Those who face the unbearably difficult experience of walking on a street where they are constantly encountered by women who are all clothed, or not clothed, is meant to stimulate the instinct of those who pass by on the street,.

    D. To know how to 'pargan' himself for every success, even a small and partial one.
    To think how pleased his Creator is with every success, and from every rejection of instinct. Will initially relish the rejection of the instinct for a few hours; Later for a few days, and later for more than that. Just as the evil instinct comes from time to time, begins a little and continues with much, so 'to a great extent' the good instinct - goes on and on until today!

    God. To engage oneself in interesting pursuits.
    Study, work, music, volunteering and so on. Is not this what Pharaoh king of Egypt taught us: 'Let the work honor the people and do not save them with lies', and unlike our rabbis who taught us:

    and. Do not constantly sink into a 'problem'.
    So true. The 'problem' becomes 'identity'. Understand that everyone has their own passions and falls, and in contrast, in 'good measure multiplied' peaks and successes abound. Just as Egypt is about failures, one must rejoice several times over at the successes of life and the good deeds, which precisely because they come with sorrow and difficulty, are very, very precious to the place.

    P. 'For the joy of God is your strength'.
    The more one feels God's presence in the world - the greater the joy in him. 'I have asked the Lord before me always because on the right hand I will not fall', and as the followers demanded: 'Because in joy you will come out' - by joy. To share with God all the moves of life, in acknowledging all the good and asking for the missing, for the person himself and for the whole community. When you approach life with joy and lightness - you throw all the obstacles.

    These are some of the basics of coping heroically, and presumably anyone can find from his or her own experience and the experience of others more good advice, ‘Let the wise and the wise know more’.

    Regards, S.C. Levinger
    Greetings. I did not agree with a single sentence of yours. But as I began to react to them (repeated mixing between morality and halakhah, a completely distorted conception of morality, and so on and so forth), I realized at some point that this was not disagreement. Things are just outrageous. If you will allow me, I think the following story, which I once heard from Rabbi Shalom Shevdron, makes the point very clear. He said he once saw a boy who fell on the street and was injured, picked him up and started running to the hospital. All along the way, people from the windows and passers-by shouted greetings at him, such as "Rabbi Shalom, complete medicine" (in Yiddish, of course). And so he ran and ran and everyone wished. After a few minutes he sees in front of him a woman walking towards him from a distance and of course she also shouted at him, like everyone else, "Rabbi Shalom, complete healing." Slowly he approached her and her voice weakened somewhat. At the end when she finally saw who it was (= her son, of course) she started screaming in horror. At this point her wishes and advice were over. In free translation: I once saw a man suffer all his life due to a congenital malformation. Throughout his life as he walked heavily under his load everyone told him, "You must make the difficulty a challenge," or "Gain insights into your personality." Others even donated him free advice: "From the difficulty will be built." He was quoted as saying "Finals from villages". Add to it "know how to praise yourself for every success, even a partial one." Others went so far as to inform him: "A sense of pity for us that we do not suffer and have not suffered from the torments of soups" (= what fun you have!). Or "Engage yourself in interesting pursuits, instead of constantly sinking into a problem." And of course, of course, "the joy of God is strong." The mehadrin from Mehadrin would add here: “True, almost no one really succeeds, but I have heard that in the sea volumes there are those who take d hundreds of gold in their salaries and patients (if they were endowed with true reverence of course and if they went to true professionals of course) yes succeeded. God help Rabbi Shalom. ” I'm not sure how you would feel if you were in a situation like this and someone would bring you all this good advice. I do know what I would feel. You finished and said that everyone can from his experience find more good advice. I tell you the only good advice I draw from my experience in relation to such a situation: that the last thing one needs is tips of this kind and the like. I think it is better for him to admit the truth and say that we have no advice, but what will I do and my Father in heaven has decreed upon me (religious and immoral decree).

    Rabbi Michi,
    It is possible that Rabbi Levinger's words are said in a relaxed tone because he is far from the problem. He and others may not feel like the mother of that son. That's not to say it's not the right answer. After all the pity and problematicity of the situation, his words sum up quite badly what is expected of a religious homosexual to do. More than that - his words summarize not bad what every Jew is expected to do. It is possible to have mercy on any person (mercy is a relative matter as is well known), we all have problems and troubles, and this is exactly how a Jew should deal with them.

    First, the fact that someone is far from the problem is supposed to make him approach or not speak with such alienation and such sloganism.
    I was not just talking about the answers but about the tone in which they were said. But even the answers themselves are incorrect. First, there is no moral problem here, and that is where the whole discussion began. Second, most of these tips are not helpful. Some present reality in a selective and biased way. Another part comforts him with idle consolations. The same person who suffers can decide to overcome Kari and maybe he will succeed, but you can not give him advice from the side that Kari will overcome and that the joy of God is his stronghold. And then further add to him that he is immoral because he disappoints his parents and his Creator.
    Besides, chances are he will not be able to cope, just as each of us would not be successful in his situation. I would expect a reference to that as well. Tell him it's not terrible, since it's a very difficult and almost impossible task. This is instead of quoting empty verses and vague experts selected with tweezers and not helping him (unless they are "professionals", unlike all psychiatrists in the world, but if he believes and is determined.
    If you are a close friend of such a person and you have the ability to motivate him to more determined action and support him - it may be possible. But not as a general school advice for dealing with such a terrible situation.
    My remarks will soon come up here, and there it will become a little clearer.

    In the XNUMXth of Elul, XNUMX

    Dear gentlemen,

    Last Thursday, Rabbi Michael Avraham Neru asked "what should the man do" to get out of his situation. And I resolved to do a righteous will, and I answered his question as I knew and as my experience.
    As a Jew, who, like everyone else, 'witnessed many adventures', went through crises and waves, ups and downs, etc., etc. - I could summarize ways of action and thinking that I had to help deal with my problems, and may help others in dealing with his problems.

    I really forgot another point, which came up in your words, and it is perhaps first and foremost:

    H. Maintain composure and composure in the most stressful situations.
    What will give and what will make you lose your temper? When you act out of anxiety, confusion and 'stress' - you will only get involved and sink into the mud more and more.
    So grasp yourself, and calmly analyze the situation. You will learn the subject, from books and from professionals; And no less important, learn for yourself: to know what brings you down and what brings you up? What is disturbing and what is soothing?
    In fact, this is what psychologists and counselors do: sit down with you and do a 'mental arithmetic' with you, and from that you come to insights into the roots of the problem and ways to solve it.

    Regards, S.C. Levinger

    Your comment about the 'mother of the child', which takes her son's condition seriously, is not clear. I too commented on the parents' terrible distress in the face of their son's problem, a distress that exists even if they conquer their cry in their hearts.
    Even Yitzchak, who walks in the commandment of God to bind - his heart aches for the sorrow of his mother who 'changed his face, the son who was born for ninety years, was for fire and food, I am sorry for the mother to cry and weep'. May we be blessed as Joseph that the image of our parents' portrait will stand up to us during the difficult trial.

    First, even though I look around me I do not find here a righteous man whose desire he wants to fulfill, I must apologize for the sharpness of the things I wrote in the storm of debate. Mr. as usual remarks with allusion and politeness, and I in my iniquities a stormy man.
    It seems to me that in the background were the assertions you made about the immorality of the matter with which I strongly disagreed, and they left an impression and seal even on the other bitter words that came later. I think there was also one-sidedness in presenting things, and she seemed a little alienated to me.
    Finally, it may be possible to find help in your remarks for a person who is undecided, but I still think it is better to put them in a slightly different context, as I remarked throughout the discussion.
    All the best and again sorry.
    Schatz. Levinger:

    Say to the sufferer :: You are lost. You have no chance. There is no point in going to the hospital at all. Go straight to the cemetery.

    Then complain about suicide. And maybe the good guys of your kind bring the sufferers to despair and suicide?

    There is another way too. It is possible to give them practical advice (although there is very little unfortunately, and it is worth clarifying it honestly and not whitewashing), but without the advice not these tips, and without the problematic comforts you offered that will only deepen the frustration (while fortifying God's joy).
    And it is certainly not right to paint them a rosy and unreliable picture (as if these failers are unprofessional therapists, and as if the believer is successful).
    And even less true to explain to them that they are immoral because their parents have invested in them and their Creator expects of them and they just fail and are raised in their faith. Are you serious? This is how the afflictions are answered (R. Barar and Yitzha AA, XNUMX)?
    And also regarding the conception of morality which you have presented. And that if my parents wanted me to carry a hundred kilograms on my back all my life I would have to do it out of gratitude? Is there such a moral charge? I have already reminded you of Maharik about choosing a spouse. I mention that we are discussing morality and not halakhah. There must be such a halakhic charge. But to say that there is a moral charge? Forgiveness, it's just crooked. In general, gratitude to God is not simple at all, and in my opinion does not belong to morality but to philosophy. See articles here:
    https://mikyab.net/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%9B%D7%A8%D7%AA-%D7%98%D7%95%D7%91%D7%94-%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9F-%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A1%D7%A8-%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%98%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%92%D7%99%D7%94/מעבר For all this, it is very important to comfort them that even if they fail, almost everyone else would not stand for it either. And we have already found in the Ketubot Lag if not for her to Hananiah Mishael and Azariah hooked segments to the photographer, named well in the difference between continuous mild suffering and great but local and momentary suffering.
    Schatz. Levinger:

    The words about the possibilities of success are the words of Dr. Zvi Mozes, director of the Shiloh Institute, one of the top professionals in our sector. And he explicitly says that in case the clear tendency change is very difficult, but people who are very determined and have strong faith can succeed with proper professional guidance.

    The rest of my remarks are clear things. Do you think that Rabbi Kolon intended to allow a person to marry to remember? 🙂 Who allowed a man to follow his parents on the altar of his passions? If he does not flee to the palace, he will wear black and wrap himself in black, etc. ”and will not ruin his parents' lives in terrible grief.

    No one is saved from his troubles in misery. Ask any social worker and he will tell you
    , That the foundation of the elements is to take the person out of the victim's feeling. Once a person takes responsibility for his fate - he will already find the way to be redeemed. And if it is outrageous - it is also outrageous, the language of outrage ..

    With all due respect to "our sector" you are ignoring completely different positions that today are almost a professional consensus (I am not an expert and I also have some suspicions about this consensus, and yet you ignore it with a flick of the pen just because Dr. So-and-so said). Moreover, even his own words, at least as you quoted them, are very reluctant. I can also say that if you are very believing and very determined and your inclination is not complete you can overcome. How many are there? And how many others? How many of them succeeded? Did he give numbers? Science works with quantitative estimates and not with slogans (maybe he brought it all up, but from what you said I saw nothing of it).

    The rest of your remarks are indeed clear, just like their predecessors. Who here said that the Maharik intended to allow remember? And that we are dealing with judges ?! If you did not understand, I will explain my claim. Your method has a moral obligation to comply with parents' expectations because they gave birth to me and invested in me. So if they ask me to marry a certain spouse and not an anonymous one - in your opinion I should have obeyed them, right? Of course it is. But what to do, he says no (and so also ruled in the Rama). Where is the morality here? Meaning: There is no moral obligation to obey parents in choosing a spouse. They have no right to make demands on me regarding my life. So what does it matter if it is remembered or not? The difference between them is halakhic, but you talked about a moral obligation to comply with the demands of the parents, and in this matter there is no difference. On the contrary, choosing a female instead of a male is a great suffering and almost impossible for the son, but replacing one spouse with another is an unparalleled easy thing. So why does he not have to do this? And in your language: who allowed a man to bind his parents and cause them terrible heartache on the altar of his passions that lead him just to the same spouse he wants. Who will sting his passions and take another mate and cause his dear parents most sacred contentment. And in general, if he is not comfortable and difficult for him - let him be determined and believe and go to Dr. Moses and he will help him overcome. What is the problem?

    And as for the end of your words, a person with cancer will find a way to be saved if only he can be believed in himself. And so is every other chronic patient. These are slogans that are doubtless indifference and doubtful New Age foolishness. They take me back to the story of Rash Shevdron. It's easy to say when you talk about others you do not care about. Ask any social worker and he will tell you this.
    Schatz. Levinger:

    Let's start from the end:

    I did not say that a person with cancer would necessarily be saved. I said that a person with a serious illness that seems incurable, is looking for a cure. King Hezekiah, the prophet of God, says to him, 'For you are dead and will not live.' You searched and searched, you receive the judgment of heaven with love, permission was given to the doctor to heal - not to despair.

    There is a dear Jew, R. Cohen-Melamed, who suffered from muscular dystrophy more than 15 years ago, and one of the doctors then informed him that he had only a few months left to live. Dr. Melamed did not listen to him and lives to this day and writes books In the meantime he managed to attend the funeral of the doctor who assured him of his imminent death):

    Regarding the tendency -

    I did not come to conduct philosophical and scientific discussions, yes it is possible not possible? - I see before my eyes only one figure, the confused and embarrassed young man torn between his inclination and his faith. There is no way in the world to go out by both its creator and creator. His only chance of getting out of the rift is to find a solution, and I'm trying to find the address where he's most likely to solve the problem.

    I am a little scared of 'mental advice', for several reasons: they are too optimistic, and a guy who comes with a high level of expectations and especially an expectation of immediate success, can fall into despair. Other than that, there some of the therapists are non-professional volunteers. And for their 'repetitive method', which tries to 'empower masculinity' - good only for some cases, and it does not seem to me that this is the reason for all cases

    That is why I turned in the direction of Dr. Zvi Mozes, whom I do not know personally, but his optimistic but very careful style - inspires cautious optimism in me. With you, I have only briefly quoted him. In my comments on Yoav Sorek's two articles, I bothered to copy two main paragraphs in his remarks that clarify the possibilities and their chances (because 'Link' I do not know how to do, meanwhile I 'Linkopov' is incurable :).

    The experience of a veteran therapist in the field, does not go on foot… and it is our duty to inform the undecided about its existence, and the possibility of trying to get help from it.

    Regards, S.C. Levinger

    Your interpretation in the Maharik that the son does not owe anything to his parents is completely unclear. It seems to me that some people understand that this is about the honor of a father who was rejected because of the mitzvah of the son to marry a woman, that if he found a kosher woman and that he loved Man Mifis he would find her? Dr. Moses can help a guy who wants to make Kono want to break away from a forbidden marriage, but break away from a good marriage to heaven and human beings - God forbid.

    And in any case, even when the young man is allowed and commanded to marry at the choice of his heart against the will of his parents, he is obliged to speak to them good and consoling things, with all gentleness and respect. Say to them: 'Dear parents, I love and cherish everything you have done for me, and I am sure you will have holy devotion from this righteous girl and woman of valor'. And usually even if they do not reconcile immediately - they will reconcile when the grandchild is born.

    What pleasure will they have from the Cretan prohibition that was created called 'abomination'?

    I wrote an apology on the site for the sharpness of my remarks, and I repeat it here as well (I did not understand why it is conducted in two channels. I do not see things here that require excessive secrecy. I realized that some of the discussion was mistakenly diverted to the email here).
    As a matter of fact, what bothered me was mainly the context, but I also strongly disagreed with the content. And the species of your species will be encroached upon.
    As for the Maharik and the concept of respecting the territory of others, see my remarks in the articles here:
    https://mikyab.net/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9B%D7%99%D7%91%D7%95%D7%93-%D7%94%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95%D7%98%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%98%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%94-%D7%94%D7%9C%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%99%D7%AA/בכל Manner, it is clear that the form of speech towards the parents should be respectful.
    All the best and again sorry
    Reader's eye:

    In S.D. XNUMX in Elul, p

    My recent discussions with Rabbi Avraham that took place between us in the private email, and were uploaded to the site tonight - were not intended by Maikra to be published on the site, and should be treated as a 'draft', which does not necessarily reflect a cohesive conclusion.

    Regards, S.C. Levinger


    I apologize for the misunderstanding. As I wrote, I thought that by mistake things went to the regular email instead of to the site, and I did not see in them anything that deviated from the discourse that took place here on the site, so I forwarded them (in real time) to upload to the site. Only now have they come up because only now is the debate over. And really the last posts between us when I realized they were not meant for here I did not upload. Anyway, sorry again.
    Reader's eye:

    In S.D. XNUMX in Elul, p

    To the sage Rabbi MDA, full of wisdom and science, as a reliable economist and daredevil, Delbish Mada, to study Torah and teach it, and crowned in every measure, right and honorable - will extend his peace to Hada, and multiply Torah and certificate, to enlighten the eyes of the community! - Peace and great salvation,

    I will demand more of this, as the Honorable City is right about the problem that professional psychological treatments involve a serious financial outlay, which sometimes deters those who need them, and makes it difficult for them to persevere with them.

    In Kochav Hashahar and its surroundings, they found a solution by establishing a fund called 'Chaim Shel Tova' (managed by Rabbi Natan Shalev, rabbi of Mevoot Jericho), which helps fund family and couple psychiatric treatments for those in need.

    It is worthwhile to adopt this course of action in every neighborhood and locality, and to establish similar funds that will encourage and assist in professional mental health care for the individual and the family.

    The young man spoke in the thousands of Judah, in return for his reverent hand,
    Damchavi Kida, Regards and Thanks, S.C. Levinger

    Shalev and Yesha Rab to Mr. Chen Chen for his wishes and comments.
    And in him and in me we will hold the wee in the storm, a captain's stick is made to swing. If a Roman man tells you a sword and aya, know that Jerusalem on a mound is built.
    We will win Lior in the light of the lights, and we will be saved from all cruel decrees. A man to his brother will say loudly, sons and daughters with a struggling minister. And I will sign an application to a tortured occupant, who we will sign for good this year.

  4. Reader's eye:
    A discussion on the subject will be found in the spring in the articles:
    Roni Schur, 'It is possible to change (on the treatment of opposite tendencies in' Advice of the Soul '), Tzohar XNUMX (XNUMX), on the' Asif 'website;
    Rabbi Azriel Ariel, 'Can anyone change? (Response) ', there, there;
    Dr. Baruch Kahana, 'Religion, Society and Reverse Tendencies', Tzohar XNUMX (XNUMX), on the 'Asif' website.
    Dr. Zvi Mozes, 'Is Treatment of Reversal Tendencies Psychologically Effective', on the 'Root' website.
    A detailed summary of the types of treatments and the binding and negative positions - in Wikipedia, the entry 'conversion treatment'.

    Regards, S.C. Levinger

  5. Rabbi:
    I have now received the response of the psychoanalytic society in Israel to the "words of the rabbis":

    As psychoanalysts who dedicate themselves to a deep understanding of the human psyche and to help in their distress through psychotherapy, we consider it our duty to protest the abusive statements recently made by rabbis regarding the LGBT community. Claims that homosexuality is a mental disorder, "deviation", "disability that requires psychological treatment", is a serious violation of human dignity and freedom - and contradicts the accepted modern position and contemporary professional knowledge about sexual orientation and identity. Giving 'mental diagnoses' by rabbis and educators who have not been trained for this is fundamentally wrong and we actually see the expression of such opinions as a real danger to the souls and even the lives of the youth and their families.
    Yossi Triast (Chairman) - on behalf of the Psychoanalytic Society in Israel
    And I wonder if the man is an idiot or a liar. What he writes is utter nonsense of course. He may have one position or another on the question of whether homosexuality is a perversion or not, but it has nothing to do with the professional knowledge he may have. So he seems to be an idiot. While it may be a deliberate exploitation of his professional hat to promote a value agenda, he is then a liar. I leave the reader to choose between the options.

    1. I do not think he is necessarily an idiot. There is a disturbing lack of awareness there, and it also appears in intelligent people. If you brainwash yourself with something long enough, you begin to think that it is true and inexhaustible. Unfortunately this happens quite a bit.

  6. Fingback: Recognize the expert On rule and detail

Leave a comment