Parashat Naso (5761)

With God's help, eve of the holy Sabbath of Parashat Naso, 5761

Diseases and Social Classification

Last week we saw that the Torah is careful about distinctions between different kinds of people, each man in his camp

and each man by his banner. In this week's portion we shall see that the Torah continues this trend and distinguishes between types

of people, yet this time the pastoral and pluralistic egalitarianism of last week

comes to an end. Now some are more equal than others. The portion deals with dividing the people into fixed classes

of priests, Levites, and Israelites; afterward, with the non-permanent division into impure and pure, with one

who has undertaken abstinence from permitted things (a Nazirite), with sinners, such as a woman who has been unfaithful to

her husband, and with lepers, who are ostensibly simply sick people. The meaning of these classifications is

a physical (partial) separation between the different kinds of people. Some enter the priests' camp, and some only

the Levites' camp, and some only the Israelite camp, and there are some who are excluded even from it.

Almost all of these classifications evoke a feeling of rejection in a modern person. Today we are not prepared

to regard sick people as different, and certainly not to put them outside the camp. Even ritual impurity sounds like

an archaic concept, and certainly statuses such as priesthood and Levite status, and even monarchy. One of these categories,

perhaps indeed the most problematic of all, is the leper. In this week's portion appears the command to send the

leper outside the camp, so as not to render it impure. As stated,

leprosy is a disease, and therefore the question

of discrimination against the person afflicted by it arises all the more sharply. This question apparently also troubled the Sages,

who apparently could not accept that his removal from the camp had only a physical reason, and therefore they teach

us that leprosy is a 'spiritual' disease. One contracts it if he slanders his fellow, or if he speaks

malicious gossip about him (the word for leper is interpreted as an acronym for 'one who spreads an evil report'). That is, the leper is physically ill,

but his physical illness stems from a spiritual illness.

At first glance it would seem that a 'spiritual' illness, unlike a physical illness, depends on the value-world in which we

believe and live. Yet there is an intermediate realm, apparently between the physical and the value-laden, where the situation

is less unequivocal. I refer to what is usually called 'mental illness.' Already in the last century, Foucault

pointed out that mental illnesses are society-dependent and value-dependent definitions. He denied entirely the concept

of the 'madman,' and argued that it is nothing but a modern incarnation of ancient concepts (demons and possessions).

Today there is a social tendency that seeks to educate the public to the view that the mentally ill person is in no way different

from the physically ill person. It is a disease like any other disease, and we must relate to it with the same understanding,

and accept the ill into society in an egalitarian manner. Prof. Mordechai Rotenberg of the Hebrew University

argues that modern psychiatry reflects a Protestant value-world, in which the supreme criterion

for your being mentally 'healthy' is your ability to manage on your own in society. He argues that in a Jewish society

that lives by a value-world of mutual aid, and not of Protestant 'achievementism,' the mentally ill person

must be defined differently (for a popular presentation of the argument see his book 'Natzrut

ve-Psikhiatria'). These claims completely blur the sharp demarcation among the three kinds of

'illnesses' above: the physical, the psychiatric, and the value-based.

There is no doubt that there is a certain subjective dimension in defining these phenomena as diseases, yet there is

also no doubt that there is an objective layer here as well. Even so, it is clear that not in every case is the person

who ought to determine the classification of some symptom as a disease the professional expert in that field.

Homosexuality, about which it is very common today to say that it is not a disease at all, is a very good example

of this. Some associate the Torah's attitude toward the leper with religious attitudes

toward homosexuality and the like.

The arguments supporting the classification of homosexuality as normal are based on its prevalence

in the population, on its genetic source, and the like. It seems, however, that this is a classic case in which all the arguments

in question are irrelevant. Kleptomania (a pathological tendency to steal) may also have a

genetic source, and theoretically it may also be very prevalent in society. Still, that contains nothing

that would tell us anything about its being a disease. Beyond that, there is no doubt that society must take care in various

ways that the person afflicted with it not harm those around him. It may be said that for these reasons there is no place

to combat kleptomania by criminal means, for genetics cannot be changed, yet the classification

as a disease does not depend on any of this. The same applies to homosexuality. Prevalence does not determine

moral standards. The psychiatrist can determine whether its source is genetic, and whether such a phenomenon

lies within the control of the person who suffers from it, or alternatively how one treats this phenomenon (and whether it is possible

to do so). But the value-classification, and the question whether this is a disease or not, do not depend at all

on any scientific questions whatsoever.

Therefore, any claim to a scientific basis for homosexuality being a normal phenomenon is

nothing but pseudo-scientific demagoguery. Common claims rely on the American Psychiatric Association

which removed homosexuality from the list of diseases. There is no doubt that the decision of

that association was not based on new scientific knowledge but on a value-change that passed over

American society and Western society in general in those years. One may perhaps argue about that, but science is not

germane to it in any way whatsoever. These realms I leave to the Creator of the world, and certainly

I am not inclined to argue with Him. It is worthwhile to free ourselves from the exaggerated, almost 'religious,' halo that is bestowed

at times on science. There is no value-decision, in any field whatsoever, that lies within the domain of science,

and therefore the scientist has no added value over the layman in value-laden domains.

Have a peaceful Sabbath

It may be consigned for respectful disposal in any synagogue or Torah academy. Comments and responses will be welcomed.

Biton90.doc