Is Aaron Being Punished For Trying To Do The Right Thing?

In her diary, Tamar writes that she was anxious/stressed when with family when socializing with others worry about how Aharon feels and will react.
Why doesnt Tamars anxiety, even if extreme, matter for the question of ? The "
approach the issue as a matter of degrees. The isnt big enough (Rav Feldman & Rav Landesman), or its
only a in and not considered a for ( Rav Wachtfogel, Rav Miller etc.).
Id like to add another dimension. Its quite possible that Aarons behavior wasnt a altogether, but rather
that he was simply following Halacha which we would/should see as a virtue/ and not as a deficit/,
and/or that his actions were driven by a deep sensitivity to moral/ethical issues, which we also would/should see
as a and not a .
That sad part is, that if Im right, it can be stated with a high degree of certainty that the therapists involved,
both the original marriage counselor and surely the wouldnt have entertained the possibility that
Aarons behavior where a virtue, and even if the idea would have been brought to their attention, they would
have dismissed it out of hand. Furthermore, Tamar isnt to blame, because she did what she thought was
normal. The MENTAL HEALTH SYSTEM is however to blame because its underlying assumptions caused
this fiasco.
But Im getting ahead of myself. Please allow me to go back a bit.
In a recent comment, I quoted Dr. Allen Frances (chair of DSM IV taskforce) who in turn quotes Marianne
Kuzujanakis, MD, MPH, Director of SENG (Supporting Emotional Needs of the Gifted) and co-founder of the
SENG Misdiagnosis Initiative on this point:
"Labels, treatments, and medications are meant to alleviate suffering in the recipients, not as a means to make
those around them happy".
In other words the REAL experts are saying that being "different" is not an illness. I think this is
a major concern in the case of Aaron Freidmans .
To which a commentator wrote this retort:
That may be the ideal, though I highly doubt it's honored in the breach. Besides, when it comes to a question of
bitul kiddushin, it's all about how the patient affects others; namely, the wife, and not at all about his own
suffering.

To which I answer now:

I think that now youre touching on the essence of why many Talmidei Chachomim believe that this has
no merit.
1

Are you arguing that behaviors that cause your wife extreme anxiety are valid grounds for , regardless
of context, measured objectively?
Let's say your wife is VERY fashion conscious, she feels very, very anxious if she doesn't always carry the
latest designer handbags, because in your neighborhood EVERYBODY is fashion conscious and is always upto-date with the latest fashion trends...
Let's say that you don't want to feed her habit (because according to your ideals its wrong) or can't feed her
habit (because business is bad and money is tight), can she argue ?
Let's take it a step further & lets just say that she starts insinuating that you're crazy, or she even starts openly
denigrating you ... and you start getting tensed up and you feel caged in, because that even in your own
castle you simply cant have peace of mind. Shes not interested in reason, all she says is that you should just
do what everybody does go with the flow.
Things arent getting better, and now SHE is getting stressed out because shes ashamed to walk in the street
without this years Hermes. She talks to her empathetic local therapist who agrees that you are surely paranoid.
And her feeling that youre just stubborn in sticking to your mindless compulsions gains currency (a little
later Ill IYH explain why. The therapists reasoning is impeccable (sic). Your wife is asking for a perfectly
reasonable thing that EVERYONE knows is normal - remember, the therapist is also from the neighborhood
and he just knows what normal is! Yet, youre getting all worked up and acting paranoid about nothing! Just
to be on the safe side, (after all, they are nice people, right?) the therapist has your wife ask ten of her best
friends a straightforward question:
WOULD YOU MARRY A STINGY, PARANOID HUSBAND WHO DOESNT CARE ABOUT MY BASIC
NEEDS, AND WHEN I TRY TALKING NICELY HE JUST GLARES AT ME AND SULKS? THEY ALL
SAY NO WAY. Not even 10% would agree to marry such a nasty person! The local points out that some
Poskim say that today depends on the society. And in THIS neighborhood everyone knows that
' depends on keeping up with fashion trends.
Of course, there are some major value judgements hidden in plain sight. She assumes that youre stingy
because you dont give her money for that handbag but she forgets WHY. Context is EVERYTHING. Shes
sure that youre paranoid, since she doesnt feel you should act the way you do at home again forgetting
youre quite possibly valid reasons. Missing context again and also dismissing the possible validity of your
concerns. Finally since she never raised her voice (she said or insinuated that youre crazy nicely), she
believes that nothing she did justifies your paranoia - again missing context. No wonder she gets the answer she
was looking for.
Guess what she probably DID really FORGET and shes probably not doing it on purpose, just doing what
humanity does: Chazal call it . Researchers call it cognitive distortions or more
specifically self enhancement distortion. We all have a proclivity to underemphasize opposing viewpoints,
and often even not to remember they exist. In fact, over 500 years ago the "wrote (in ) on
the Mishna of that most interpersonal strife from this widespread character
trait we fail to even attempt to put ourselves in our counter-parties position. And even when we do, we
imagine that were right, because we dont try to distance our emotions from our decision making processes.
Is this grounds for ? According to my correspondent, perhaps it should be, since , it's all about how
the patient affects others; namely, the wife?
2

Ah! You say. Dont be silly. Aaron has serious social problems & how are you comparing that to a designer
handbag habit?
Actually, I think the and are very similar.
I mentioned a reason why hubby might not want to feed his wifes handbag habit. IDEALS.
I dont know why none of the "mentioned that the reason Aaron didnt follow Tamars
advice might also have been specifically BECAUSE OF JUSTIFIABLE IDEALS. Tamar writes:
go with the flow at long Sabbath meal, if company stops by enjoy being with others enjoyed
people so could be pleasant more flexible and easygoing poor etiquette
Tamar also includes among Aarons GOOD traits shmiras halshon does not speak badly about others in any
way idealistic .
Could it be that Tamar wanted Aaron to go with the flow in cases where he WASNT
PERMITTED to do so?
Lets think a bit about what often transpires at long Sabbath meals and what kind of conversations often takes
place Most importantly, whats the proper etiquette that is expected of family members?
Is the possibility of running into a problem of far-fetched? Is talking about the last or NEXT business deal/vacation unheard of? Do family members sometimes recount the latest chapter in their ongoing
feuds and battle with so and so? All of these things are common (as the Chofets Chaim notes countless times in
))' " .
What are family members expected to do whats the proper etiquette? Stay quiet - or are they expected to
cheer on their family member, who is part of the same team, regardless of who is really right or wrong? What
are cultural expectations - would staying silent be proper etiquette?
Anyone who isnt living in a cave knows that in many social gatherings, supporting your own is the cultural
norm and proper etiquette.
Well, heres what simple straightforward Halacha requires: Evaluating each instance according to the Halachos
involved. In the scenarios I mentioned there are problems with , , "
among other things.
The in ' " ' "makes it clear that at a bare MINIMUM Aaron needs to sit
,
so
as NOT to insinuate that he agrees with a Torah transgression. Yep, life can be hard. Proper etiquette at our
long Sabbath meals may actually put us in a terrible moral dilemma.
Heres the CC (also, please see )" " ":

() , ,
, () ,

,
,
, () ,

3

 , ,
, ( ') , ''

,
, ()
'

() , '
) (, : '',
,
() .




() .
,

, , ,
,

,
, ,

Knowing what I know about the field, I can assure you that the therapist even if Jewish & Orthodox
probably wasnt interested in the frum Halachic ramifications. A well-accepted fact in the field is that
therapists try very hard to stay away from moral and ethical issues.
Heres a little bit about why therapists are trained to stay out of ethical/moral quandaries:
Some call the concept "Therapeutic Neutrality", but its really the underpinning of humanistic / relationship
based therapy, which is based on Carl Rogers unconditional positive regard. Accepting and validating other
peoples subjective feelings regardless of any disagreements is considered to be extremely therapeutic and
therefore of great importance. It also happens to be inspired by the postmodernist philosophy that all truth is
subjective anyway and were all biased anyway, so its none of our business to push our biases on other
people. Were welcome to disagree respectfully, but were NEVER ALLOWED TO CAUSE OTHER PEOPLE
DISCOMFORT in any way, because that traumatizes them. Feel free to read what Fancher has to say about this
phenomenon in The Strange Idea of "Therapeutic Neutrality" available at
https://www.mentalhelp.net/blogs/the-strange-idea-of-quot-therapeutic-neutrality-quot/
You must think Im overdoing this stuff about NEVER being allowed to cause other people discomfort in any
way because that traumatizes them, right? Actually, Im not. Here in the USA, a big news item recently (for
those that follow these things) was that an undercover reporter from a conservative organization made of
the left-wing liberals by approaching faculty members at Vassar and Oberlin Colleges and saying that the
Constitution is kind of a trigger for me. Overall I see it just as a really oppressive document. Guess what
happened next the academics actually went to the shredder and physically shredded the Constitution!!
No, Im not overdoing it . Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/03/college-administrator-shreds-theconstitution-on-hidden-camera-video/#ixzz3r59jUjBV.
So, Tamar gets validated by her supportive therapist, who encourages unfettered self-expression (another in
therapy considered extremely important for wellbeing and self-actualization). He/she never questions her
assumptions and never brings up it cognitive distortions self enhancement
distortion. She (or her close friends) then go to ten other women, and based on the questioners own
distortions, phrases the question in a way that gets the obvious answer. They all say I would never live with
such a scoundrel! And the really sad part is that it wasnt intentional, just good all , hidden from sight.
Can we blame Tamar for doing what she thinks is normal? How should she know better? Even in our
Chareidi culture, the prioritization of concepts like go with the flow and dont make everything into a
problem, over vigilance and forethought is pervasive. Can we blame the frum therapist for doing what he/she
was taught to be the normal way of doing therapy? Ive spoken to pros who run masters programs in
psychology. The standard modus operandi is not to touch on reason. The assumption is often that given the
clients history & environment they need a break from being too vigilant and thoughful, since . It causes
anxiety, which is considered toxic! What about the rights of counter-parties, in this case Aarons right to take
4

the Halachos of seriously? Individual therapists (whether by training or for practical reasons) only
focus on the individual in front of them. How about marriage counselors? No luck here either, since most (but
not all!) are only focused on rebuilding the relationship, not Halacha.
Anyway, I understand that my exposition may by itself be triggering All this frum talk about sitting
and not going with the flow making people uncomfortable when they just want to have a good time .
No wonder Tamar wrote (perhaps 5Xs) that Aaron should just BE NICE!
So, heres another angle Maybe Aaron WAS being nice. Maybe he was acting out of VALID SENSITIVITY
to the other guy the voiceless fellow being mercilessly attacked, who couldnt defend himself because he
wasnt even present. Maybe Aaron felt it was wrong to go with the flow, while the innocent counterparty
was being denigrated and belittled for NO GOOD REASON, simply because the family needed a good
conversation topic to while away the long hours? After all, Aaron seems to be the kind of fellow who wants to
live by his ideals didnt Tamar write open/honest/real? Maybe Aaron was being REALLY, REALLY nice
TO THOSE THAT DESERVED IT? Should sensitivity to Tamars stress take precedence over the sensitivity to
the anonymous fellow who really deserves it?
As children, weve all sat enthralled by stories of heroism to uphold Yiddishkeit throughout the generations.
Whether stories of the Avos, Holocaust stories or even stories from WWII or the Communist Soviet Union.
Here is an example of how we can write our OWN story. As the Rishonim say (see )" " " ' "this
is what is all about. Religion & especially Yiddishkeit is not about maximizing pleasure and
minimizing pain, its about values and courage
Yes, tact is required. Maybe Aaron was missing that fine line between and being . Does that
make his position any less tenable than that of the go with the flow crowd? Didnt he say (according to
Tamars diary) that He thinks hes doing a good job and He insists he doesnt know what to do. For which
Tamars retort was needs so much handholding/direction things I take for granted. Dear Tamar: he meant
to say: EXPLAIN YOUR REASONING. YOURE A FINE JEWISH WOMEN AND I WANT TO BE WITH
YOU, BUT THE FACT THAT YOU TAKE IT FOR GRANTED ISNT ENOUGH?!
Besides, it sounds like Aaron is a smart and perceptive fellow. After all, he did have a job thats pretty hard to
land for some random paranoid, compulsive fellow, no? Maybe he actually understood WHY Tamar cant pull
herself away from those tantalizing conversations that are so common by so many families Maybe SHE was
too needy and although well-meaning, lacked the strength of character to pull away from the crowd?
Maybe Tamar got the whole picture wrong? Maybe when she writes that Aaron says he prides self on
independence doesn't care what others think/feel, he means to say that he has the fortitude and strength of
character to REALY be nice and care for the underdog - in this case, the people who are being shredded
during the dinner table idle talk, that dont deserve to be shredded?
Maybe Aaron understood that Tamar is a fine person, who like so many people, cant handle the discomfort of
being different, and he can manage better?
Wishful thinking? I dont think so. Notice that Tamar never calls Aaron anti-social. Hes nice in private
settings, and as Rav Landesman noted, he must have acted decently at his work, or he wouldnt have lasted in
such a competitive and demanding job. He doesnt fit the profile of what the Rambam in considers
people that hate humanity.

I want to make it perfectly clear that I dont posses and my crystal ball isnt functioning well, either.
Rather, Im trying to say theres an alternative explanation thats at least PLAUSIBLE. From my intimate
knowledge of the field & after speaking with a number of FRUM therapists, I can state with a very high degree
of certainty that Its clear that this angle was most likely (over 60% chance- )NOT considered, let alone
explored. Halachic & ethical/moral considerations like those I mentioned would not naturally be something the
therapist would want to discuss, cognitive distortions and internal inconsistencies are ROUTINELY ignored.
Plenty of research literature backs up this fact. The element that Aaron had no say in his own diagnosis also
flies in the face of what ALL top experts say is necessary, especially in matters which are under the rubric of
forensic psychology, as this is.
Getting back to the issue of that we started with: Tamar writes about herself anxious/stressed
when with family when socializing with others - worry about how Aharon feels and will react.
Why doesnt Tamars anxiety matter? Besides for the issues of degree of , it might just be that theres NO
. Just Aarons being a for wanting to do the right thing. CONTEXT matters. Halacha matters and
ethical/moral considerations matter.
One more thing about Tamars Rabbinic backers, especially the ". I could state with 100%
confidence that they would never condone going with the flow when it would contravene Torah.
Still, judging from 90%+ of Rabonim that Ive spoken to, I can also state with a high degree of certainty that
they have no idea of the belief system that underlies both DSM diagnosis & typical counseling, and that it never
occurred to them that the reason for not accepting the diagnosis of the has nothing to do with whether
or not ' , but rather pertains to another Teshuva of Rav Moshe ", this one is in ( )" ' ' "where
he writes that extreme care is necessary when choosing clinicians. In fact, in his day he clearly prohibited using
a psychologist who wasnt Shomer Umitzvohs. ' didnt figure, because the was real
that problems could arise. "
". This post was meant to prove that such problems STILL exist, and not only by irreligious therapists,
but also by well-meaning but ignorant frum ones.

Theres much more to say, but this post is already too long!