Letters to the Editor	Print

Volume 3 , Issue 2 (Nov, 1989 | Cheshvan, 5750)

The Jewish Review encourages readers to submit letters to the editor. Letters are published at the discretion of The Jewish Review and are subject to editorial and space considerations.

To the editor:

Miriam Biber's article on women learning Torah (Vol.3 No.1 - September, 1989) was well-written and thought-provoking, but unfortunately it minimized some real problems regarding available study options for women.

Even in New York, the number of yeshivas and adult-education institutions offering advanced education to women is much smaller than those offering such education to men. The situation in the rest of the country is much worse. ?Seminary level? classes exist, but they are not equivalent to the classes available for men in either intellectual level or variety of subject matter.

Biber makes the valid point that all authorities agree that women are obligated to learn the mitzvot incumbent upon them. But, if that's true, where are the schools that teach women the laws of these mitzvot in depth, as they should be learned? In many Jewish communities, a woman looking for formal Torah learning can find only token classes on the sidra of the week, a few isolated lectures and little else.

Why don't more rabbis encourage women -- especially those without children or whose children are grown -- to study Torah to the limits of their capacity, certainly at a level beyond what they learned in high school?

If women can spend time and money on advanced secular education, they should do the same to obtain advanced Torah education -- including Talmud (the teshuvot of several rabbinic authorities support this). Of course, the ultimate responsibility to learn belongs to women themselves. But without more support from Jewish leaders and the ?frum? community, serious learning by women will continue to be the exception rather than the rule.

Gitelle Rapoport

Brooklyn, NY

To the editor:

On reading Dr. Drob's article ?Freud and the Chasidim: Redeeming the Jewish Soul of Psychoanalysis? I was quite impressed by the extensiveness of the article, as well as the author's familiarity with both the kabbalah and psychoanalysis. However, I was concerned about some of the parallels made in that article. It seemed to me that in an attempt to find commonalities between psychoanalysis and chasidut, the author lost sight of the forest through the trees. Although Dr. Drob correctly identified some of the similarities in each of the systems of thought, he neglected to fully consider the overall function of each of the theories. When the ultimate purpose of each theory is understood, the similarities that exist in the component parts are really insignificant. Although perhaps intellectually compelling, the comparisons become meaningless. In addition, by drawing such parallels, some fundamental concepts in each of the theories are blurred or distorted.

One fundamental difference between chasidut and psychoanalysis, which cannot be minimized, is that the former is a way of life embodying the moral code of the 613 mitzvot, whereas the later is a theory of human behavior which prides itself on moral neutrality. In a nutshell, the purpose of kabbalah and chasidut is to draw out the esoteric or hidden meaning of the Torah. Although perhaps ?radical? in the concepts it uses,it is completely integrated with the mainstream assumptions of Orthodox Judaism and Torah Law. ?Lurianic kabbalah? and chasidut would be meaningless without the basic notions of the transcendent divinity of the Torah and the obligations of a Jew to keep Torah and mitzvot, since its whole intent is to bring a Jew to a deeper, more complete observance of the Torah.

In contrast, psychoanalysis, as I understand it, posits intrapsychic constructs to describe human behavior. It does not recognize the validity of God, nor demand conformity to any set of behaviors or moral code. In fact, as the author points out, it views ?religious? doctrine as a negative influence on human development.

With this fundamental distinction in mind, the parallels between a psychoanalyst and a Rebbe, for example, fall flat. True, both relationships cause an individual to reflect on his or her behavior,but that is where the similarity ends. The rebbe, through a variety of methods, guides the Jew to a deeper observance of Torah and mitzvot. He serves as a springboard for the goal of improved spiritual service.His interest in a person's psychological functioning and internal conflict is only in the context of its impact on the Jew's service to God. The psychoanalyst's function is to elicit repressed material with the goal of resolving internal conflict. This intrapsychic resolution may or may not result in a behavioral or spiritual change. Thus the similarity between these introspective processes is really limited since the end goal of each self analysis is so different.

Another inappropriate analogy was that between the exile of God's presence (the Shechinah) in the world and the ?exile? of unacceptable thoughts to the unconscious. The point was made that just as chasidut speaks of the redemption when Jews will be completely reunited with God, and God's presence will be completely revealed, so too psychoanalysis describes a psychological ?redemption? when the exiled thoughts and emotions reemerge and reintegrate with the rest of the individual's functioning. Again, there is a similarity in the concepts when viewed apart from the context in which each was developed. When the overall purpose of each of the theories is understood, the similarities are too superficial to be relevant. The psychological redemption achieved through psychoanalysis has nothing to do with the spiritual redemption discussed in chasidut. An individual might have resolved his or her intrapsychic conflict and live a guilt-free anxiety -free life, but still be quite far from the path of Jewish observance. In fact, resolution of intrapsychic conflict does not necessarily parallel spiritual growth. Similarly, pursuit of Torah and mitzvot may or may not contribute to ?psychological harmony? in the psychoanalytic sense.

In spite of the above critique, I do agree with Dr. Drob that the attempt to facilitate a synthesis between chasidic thought and psychoanalysis is a laudable goal. As the author suggested at the end of his article, an application of some of the tools and techniques of psychoanalysis, could conceivably be used in conjunction with chasidut, such as through helping a person deepen his spiritual observance. This would, of course, require divorcing psychoanalytic techniques from many of the underlying values and assumptions. In arriving at that synthesis, however, it is critical that the concepts of each theory not get hastily lumped together and inappropriately viewed as being analogous. In short, it's important to keep the concepts straight.

Miriam Biber Ph.D.

Dr. Drob replies:

The distinctions between psychoanalysis and chasidism are as vast as they are obvious and, as Dr. Biber realizes, follow in large measure from the godlessness of the Freudian endeavor. My own article pointed out these contrasts in speaking of psychoanalysis as a ?secularized negative mysticism in which the intimate Blessed God is replaced by the specter of inorganic death,? in describing psychoanalysis as ?morally irresponsible or at best incomplete? because of Freud's ?failure to acknowledge a source of values beyond the self,? and in understanding ?the entire metapsychology of psychoanalysis [as being] conceived from the point of view of the animal soul,? and thus ignoring what is Godly both in the world and in man. My purpose in drawing the parallels and contrasts between Freud and chasidism was not to assimilate these two approaches to the human psyche or soul, but rather to suggest that many psychoanalytic concepts are a secularization (and, hence, a distortion) of fundamental kabbalistic/chasidic ideas, and to establish some points of contact between psychoanalysis and Judaism so that the former might be raised to the level of the latter and be placed in the service of the religious Jew's spiritual quest. My point was that certain fundamental kabbalistic and chasidic concepts have, from a Jewish point of view, been ?exiled? in psychoanalysis and that both the similarities and contrasting purposes of these two disciplines can be understood clearly in this light. While it may, indeed, be true that the psychoanalytic resolution of intrapsychic conflict does not necessarily lead to spiritual or moral growth, this is, in my view, a function of this ?exile? and is to be regretted. That the pursuit of Torah and Mitzvot does not always transform the individual both psychologically and spiritually, is also to be regretted and was a major impetus to the founding of the chasidic movement nearly 250 years ago and is a major reason for contemporary Judaism to take a second look at psychoanalytic thought, today.