I’m amazed that after everything I wrote, that’s what you ask. No. This is not a problem like any other problem. It’s impossible to function normally in religion with OCD unless you condemn yourself to suffering. It’s so broad that I don’t know where to begin and where to end. By chance, after I asked here, I found this link by Yuval Cherlow:

כפייתיות דתית / יובל שרלו

I repeat that every person with OCD has difficulty functioning, religious or not. Therefore this has no connection whatsoever to questions of religiosity and Jewish law. Indeed, in each person it appears differently depending on his life and outlook, and that is true for a religious person as well.
In the past I mentioned here that a friend of mine who treats religious OCD patients would sometimes refer them to me, and we dealt with the issue a bit (was the Rabbi of Brisk God-fearing or an OCD patient?).

With God’s help, 11 Tishrei 5781

To A. — greetings,

A bit of “obsessiveness” is actually a very healthy thing. It is the trait of revolutionaries and people who repair the world, for whom the world as it is is not satisfactory, and who try to improve it. If there is no inner resistance to what is unworthy, nothing will ever change. That is true regarding the flaws of the world and regarding the failings of the person himself.

On the other hand, there is enormous value in “sociability,” in the feeling that “I dwell among my own people.” The whole truth is not in my possession; I too have biases and mistakes, and it is worthwhile to listen to the voices of others too, especially the voice of parents and teachers, who perhaps also understand certain things better than I do. And it is worth reexamining my insights when they conflict with the insights of others.

Even if I have already become convinced that I am right and everyone else is wrong—there is still room to criticize others respectfully and courteously, out of recognition and appreciation for the many positive sides they have. Even when a person has sharp criticism of certain points in their path that are unworthy, he should not ignore the points of truth and goodness in the other.

And so too regarding a person’s relationship to himself. Even if he sees that he has not reached the high bar he set for himself, he must not despise himself and consider himself worthless. Rather, he should rejoice in the little good that is in him (as Rabbi Nachman says in Lesson 282). A person should, both regarding himself and regarding others, rejoice in what exists, and on top of what exists, build higher and better layers.

“OCD,” religious and non-religious alike, is built on the mistaken idea that if I have not reached the high bar I seek, then “I have nothing and I am worthless.” And that is not true. One should rejoice in what exists and strive to improve it—not in leaps, but through careful ascent. When you jump too high, you may fall into the abyss; when you go step by step, you succeed.

With blessings, S.Tz.

It’s possible that a conflict between the religious conduct a person sees at home and what he learns in books or in yeshiva may bring him to feel that everything he sees at home is “not right,” and then he may come to disdain or detach from the home, and afterward that same disdain may flip and become directed toward his teachers in yeshiva.

Here it is important to know that honoring and revering one’s father and mother is one of the Ten Commandments, and even if they are mistaken in Jewish law, a son is not permitted to treat them with contempt. One must examine very carefully whether the parents are in fact really mistaken. Very often they have something to rely on, at least after the fact. And even if they are certainly mistaken, it takes much wisdom and tact not to fail either in Jewish law or in the commandment of honoring parents. Many times problems arise because the son is being stringent based on what he sees in abridged lawbooks, whereas if he were to consult a clear halakhic decisor, he would find a way to be lenient or to work around the problem.

With blessings, S.Tz.

The Rabbi of Brisk had OCD; as is well known, his students clung to his illness, and to this very day in the Brisk study hall they say “Shema, Shema”…

The obsession with religion was converted into an obsession against religion. And that isn’t fair. You can’t blame the Elite company because in your childhood you used to eat chocolate compulsively.

I think the writer means—and let him correct me if I’m wrong—isn’t there some leniency for a guy with a mental illness that religion intensifies for him and interferes with his daily life to the point of psychological danger? (And maybe also: why did God create people with such an illness and still expect them to behave according to Jewish law?)
A., was I aiming at your view?

In short, one could say that “religious compulsiveness” is a kind of “Karaism.” A person “builds himself a private altar” and is stringent without foundation, against tradition and accepted halakhic rulings.

There is room to act with extra piety and to beautify one’s observance “beyond the letter of the law” where there is a basis in Jewish law, but even there one must beware of irritability and arrogance, lest the beautification come at the expense of others.

With blessings, S.Tz.

Hi,
I didn’t read the whole thread.
From what I read and understood:
The leading Haredi sages said that a person with OCD is exempt from keeping commandments.

Look here, for example:
http://www.havabooks.co.il/article_ID.asp?id=226
From the article:
7. Stringencies. In general, do not be stringent about anything. Stringencies were not written for you; in any case you are already stringent with yourself more than enough. Remember the words of Nachmanides: “It is not good for a person to be overly stringent and to search after doubts… for if so there is no end to the matter… and he should not enter his head into severe doubts that have neither limit nor end” (Nachmanides, end of the laws of niddah).
Everything is permitted to you. And if you still cannot get out of the straits even with all these pieces of advice, and with the help of a God-fearing psychologist expert in intrusive thoughts, and with “make for yourself a rabbi,” then in such an extreme case you are considered coerced, and you may refrain entirely from prayer. And so Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky and the Steipler ruled in the name of the Chazon Ish: “They are entirely exempt from reciting Shema and from prayer, and there is no need for them to recite Shema or pray at all, until they return to the normal pleasant path and can perform commandments like everyone else, even if they are completely sound in mind and intellect and perceptive in all their affairs” (booklet “Pure Fear,” published by the Institute for Encouraging Torah Study, p. 19). And so too Rabbi Elazar Menachem Shach said: “Know that in all these matters of nervousness, everything is permitted! until they become accustomed to fulfill the commandments in the normal way.” And similarly in the name of Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv (ibid., p. 20). And in such cases we were commanded: “And you shall do according to all that they instruct you.”

*
The leading Haredi sages said that a person with OCD is exempt from keeping commandments
What I meant was: exempt from commandments in which the OCD is involved.

Of course one can rely on the Haredi “great leaders of the generation,” since they speak from personal experience.

With God’s help, 12 Tishrei 5781

To A. — greetings,

In my humble opinion, unlike unnecessary stringency in cases of doubt where there is no halakhic need—which is improper and stems from “OCD”—the difficulties that trouble a person when learning a line of thought, of the Sages or of philosophers, are a very healthy thing, the very foundation of depth and understanding.

Rather, one has to understand that very often these difficulties are resolved as one progresses and understands the approach as a whole—and then in retrospect the picture becomes clear and the difficulties are resolved. It is like the joke about two yeshiva students who learned in the chapter “An ox that gored a cow” and spent two weeks discussing the question: why “the cow” and not the ox? Until they gave up and moved on to the next word, “and it gave birth,” and understood in retrospect why the tanna had said “that gored the cow” 🙂

The solution is: while learning, define clearly what the sage is claiming and what difficulties I have with him. Define the difficulties and write them down, and keep going. After finishing the article or the book, go back over it, then take out the page of questions and see whether they were resolved or not.

In short: defining the questions and difficulties is the opening to finding the answers with time.

With blessings, S.Tz.

By the way, today or tomorrow is the yahrzeit of Rabbi Akiva Eiger, who wrote down for himself in his “Glosses on the Talmud” the difficult questions he encountered—questions for which the world of learners is still trying to find answers to this day. So someone full of questions like a pomegranate may be a potential “Rabbi Akiva Eiger.” He just shouldn’t despair and should keep hoping that God will enlighten his eyes.

Michi, that’s true. But it has a close connection to religiosity and Jewish law and all the inner workings of religion.

The Last Decisor, you’re not wrong. I did become a bit obsessive lately against religious people. But I’m not wrong about everything—what do you do in that situation?

Rational, I’m saying more than that. Religion = OCD. So I don’t know how much leniency would help. And it really is a question: “Why did God create people with such an illness and expect them to behave according to Jewish law anyway?” I’ll tell you it’s much broader than that and touches all the literature of the Sages all the way to Kabbalah. To me it says that God really has no part in all this Torah. A senior person at Hidabroot once told me this blinds the eyes, and I claim the opposite: OCD completely opens your eyes to religion.

Someone, the things you brought are interesting, and I knew some of them even before. I’m interested to see it stated explicitly that they rule he is exempt from commandments.

S.Tz., I went beyond Rabbi Akiva Eiger in that respect. He stayed in religion because of his questions, and I just couldn’t stay any longer because of the sheer number of questions and insights.

By the way, it’s interesting to bring here what is written in Wikipedia: “Freud, the father of psychoanalysis, described the disorder in great detail in his book ‘Obsessive Actions and Religious Practices’ (1907). In this book, considered one of the important works in the study of religion and modern psychology, Freud compares the disorder to religious behavior. He points to the similarity in repetitive rituals that help reduce anxiety, but also to the difference expressed in the fact that religious rituals are generally public, whereas compulsive behavior is done privately, and the sufferer hides it from others. Freud was among the first to recognize the wide prevalence of the disorder, although it is difficult to identify those who suffer from it, since they hide it effectively.”

See the booklet “Pure Fear.”
https://tablet.otzar.org/book/book.php?book=6206

Thanks, I saw that it also deals with tefillin, and I have trauma from them. Over the years I hurt myself quite a bit, both in the head and in the arm, so they would be in the most exact place possible.

And I have a much bigger trauma from the Infinite Light in Kabbalah, and in general from the whole concept of infinity, which my mind just can’t digest.

To A. — greetings,

You are in excellent shape if your mind does not digest infinity, because as a created being you are finite, and obviously the “Infinite” is not supposed to be grasped by you. After all, it is explained in “Petach Eliyahu” that regarding the Holy One, blessed be He, “no thought can grasp Him.” I would start worrying if you told me you had digested the concept of “infinity” 🙂

With blessings, S.Tz.

As for head-tefillin, until recently men were forbidden to look in a mirror, and all the prophets, tannaim, medieval authorities, and later authorities relied on the estimate that it was more or less in the middle. One need not be more righteous than they were. Especially since one may rely on Rabbi Chaim of Sanz that there is room widthwise for two pairs of tefillin as well.

As for arm-tefillin, the place is where there is muscle (and some say only in the lower half of the upper arm). So do push-ups and there’ll be a big muscle.

Paragraph 1, line 1
…that your mind does not digest the “Infinite”…

S.Tz., what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger. I don’t think it’ll happen ever again, but until it’s over, it’s not over. The problem is that I perceive everything sharply and deeply. You wouldn’t want me ending up in the ER again while you talk this casually to me about infinity. Luckily I’m outside religion, so I won’t have to deal with it. But there is a new scientific theory (unproven, of course) hovering over all our heads outside too, and that is the multiverse.

S.Tz., “more or less in the middle” — in the middle of what?

To B.G. —

Ask A., and he’ll explain to you 🙂

With blessings, S.Tz.

As Benjamin (Benny) Gantz already taught us: “Neither right nor left, Israel before all,” like the tefillin of the Master of the Universe, of which it is written: “And who is like Your people Israel, one nation on earth.”

With blessings, S.Tz., graduate of Mercaz

Now seriously, “more or less in the middle” — in the middle of what?

Rabbi Michi, I have to say your answer seems a bit strange to me. This is not an illness like any other illness. OCD is a condition that is known to intensify even more and to harm precisely those who are careful about Jewish law the most. So obviously there is a need for lenient halakhic rulings for those who suffer from it, just like in other cases of pressing circumstances. Maybe (though I don’t know) you simply haven’t encountered the phenomenon, or the ability of rabbis to improve these symptoms very significantly. But in truth this is a major issue that is very worth knowing about, and it seems to me there were even a few study conferences for rabbis on the subject.

As for the experience, see for example here:
https://www.israelhayom.co.il/article/581669
https://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4339762,00.html

Although, like any theoretical story, sometimes the penny doesn’t drop until you meet such people face to face (compare rabbis before and after they first encountered LGBT people). If you have in fact encountered it, then my apologies—but the therapeutic claim is that rabbis really can (!!) help reduce the symptoms of this issue, and a unique halakhic ruling is definitely required—
Take for example the laws regarding someone who is unsure during prayer about saying “Who brings down the dew.” There is reason to be lenient if he has OCD, because for him the generation of doubt is “medical” and happens all the time, and therefore this is not a balanced doubt of the sort the Sages spoke about, but a doubt that arises automatically. In practice, the laws of doubt discussed by the medieval authorities (for example, presumptive considerations that if he is in doubt, he said what he is used to saying if thirty days have not passed) apparently do not apply in their case. That is, the consideration that caused the medieval authorities to rule that he must repeat probably is not relevant in the case of OCD. By the way, precisely here first-order halakhic ruling can really come into play. Though this is also a good example showing that even “regular” decisors make first-order considerations. But that would take us too far afield.
More examples can be given. For instance, the statement of a halakhic decisor regarding examining an etrog: to emphasize to a person that he should inspect the etrog only superficially—for example, no more than about 30 seconds and with the naked eye—and to stress explicitly beforehand that if afterward he discovers a spot after the fact, the etrog is still kosher, because that is a spot not visible in a superficial glance. A ruling like that (even though in this case it does not differ from the basic law) can greatly ease things for such people. A decisor who knows that a person suffers from this problem must stress this to him and understand that by doing so he is saving him from distress.
And there are also cases where precisely because this is a kind of “sick person,” one may rule for them according to a more lenient position, like other cases where we find greater leniency in pressing circumstances or for a “sick person” (as is well known, this is an accepted halakhic consideration, even if your own approach in that context is different).
In short, there is definitely a halakhic issue here: both in the laws themselves, which differ in their regard (because the usual logic is irrelevant, or because of considerations of illness and pressing circumstances), and in the ability of a decisor familiar with this reality to ease the suffering of those affected.
It seems to me that a few decades ago an important booklet called “Pure Fear” was published in the name of several major halakhic decisors of the Haredi world, who discussed the main points (I think I once saw it in Otzar HaChochma), and I also came across in the past Avigdor Bensh”k’s book “Compulsiveness and Anxiety on a Religious Background,” which deals with the phenomenon from the therapeutic side (I think it hardly addressed halakhic matters there).
In short, with respect, this is indeed a matter that halakhic decisors definitely have something to say about and can help with, and go out and see that this is in fact what is done even among conservative decisors. If you have not had the chance to study this medical issue in depth, I recommend it (since people ask you questions of Jewish law, as is known, and especially because first-order ruling is very relevant in this issue).

(Only now did I see that you wrote that you had met such people. My apologies.)

M, I agree with everything you wrote here. The question was not what can be made easier and how to assist these people, but what the outlook of Jewish law or Jewish thought is toward them. And regarding that I said there is no such thing. This is an illness, and it has unique manifestations among religious people, but its treatment is entrusted to experts in the matter. As I wrote, I have indeed met such people, and a psychologist who did his doctorate on the subject and treats such religious patients would refer some of them to me. So I know the issue, though not in deep familiarity.
The question of what leniencies are appropriate and how one can help them is a different question.

With God’s help, 13 Tishrei 5781

OECD is “Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development,” and these are the four principles that prevent OCD.

“Organisation” —
When a person is organized and orderly and does his actions with concentration and without mental scatter, he is less likely to be in doubt whether he did something or not. Let him pause for a moment before the first verse of Shema and focus; let him pause for a moment before beginning the Amidah and focus on the first blessing. A large part of doubts are created when one is not concentrated on what one is doing.

“Economic”
Even in the service of God one has to calculate as in economics the gain versus the loss. If I was stringent regarding a double doubt of rabbinic origin, and I lose time and joy in life, then my gain has come out as a loss. The Torah was not given to people who have infinite time, but to working people who, within their normal lives, remember their Creator by observing His commandments. Does God want a person to spend all his time in anxieties?

“Co-operation” —
Most stringencies come from not knowing the Jewish law. Don’t be embarrassed to ask and receive guidance from a rabbi or a friend. If you have a question about the etrog—show it to a rabbi and he will rule; if you are in doubt whether you said or concentrated during a blessing or whether you washed your hands—well, a rabbinic-level doubt is treated leniently. If you don’t remember whether you said “dew and rain,” say it 90 times and there is a presumption that from now on your tongue is accustomed to it. If you have a doubt about the place of the tefillin, ask a mature friend to explain it to you, or ask a friend to confirm that the tefillin are in place. There are doubts—there are rabbis, teachers, and friends to solve them.

“Development” —
You want to be a righteous and pious person, beautifying the commandment to the highest degree? Not all at once. Start by observing like a simple householder, and add enhancements with joy and without pressure. Whatever creates pressure and irritation has the status of “non-kosher and invalid” ::)

With the blessing, “Serve the Lord with joy,” S.Tz. [= happy and cheerful]

S.Tz., where exactly is the place for putting on head-tefillin?

To B.G. — greetings,

The place for head-tefillin is “in the place where hair grows,” and not lower down on the forehead 🙂
For demonstrations with photos, see Rabbi Yitzchak Yosef Rimon’s book on the laws of tefillin.

With blessings, S.Tz.

With God’s help, 13 Tishrei 5781

To B.G. — greetings,

A full explanation of the place for putting on tefillin, accompanied by photos, is in Rabbi Yitzchak Yosef Rimon’s book on the laws of tefillin.

With holiday blessings, in place of S.Tz. [= where hair grows]

S.Tz., I know these laws backwards and forwards. My question was about your absurd words above: “and all the prophets, tannaim, medieval authorities, and later authorities relied on the estimate that it was more or less in the middle”…
Blessings and success, health, and may you be saved from the Haredim and their masses.

People with OCD are usually very sharp and intelligent people, and it’s not respectful to use the expression “these sick people.” I strongly object to that. True, there is a difficulty here, but this is not the way.

I protest the disparagement of the holy and pure great sages of Israel that that commenter, with God’s help, engaged in here. How is there no fear of the very sharp sayings of the Sages about one who disgraces Torah scholars?? Even if you do not agree with their outlook. And the fact is that even the great sages of the other streams would admit that the rabbis whom you disparaged are holy and pure great sages of Israel. Their whole lives were only Torah and service of the blessed Creator. And we cannot grasp how beloved they are before the blessed Creator.