3133 —סכיזופרניה, גירושין, ומעמד הלכתי בהלכה היהודית

B"H, 21 Kislev, 5715.

Brooklyn.

Haraha"g vaharaha"ch iy"a nu"n chov mvr David Shapiro

Shalom u'Vrachah!

After the long pause, I was pleased to receive your letter in which you report your good health. May it be the will of Hashem that from now on everyone should only be able to share good news with one another.

Regarding the enclosed kuntres in your letter about a man suffering from schizophrenia and whether he can divorce his wife: In general, this diagnosis includes many levels—almost from one extreme to another. But the common denominator in most cases, according to doctors' testimony, is that such a person is considered "sometimes healthy, sometimes insane," especially after being treated with new medications (except for two extremes: one who is hopeless—G‑d forbid—where medications do not help at all; or on the positive side, where he is only in a state of melancholy or excessive joy and nothing more). It seems from what is written at the beginning of the kuntres that our case is not like these extremes. There is no room to elaborate further since the main investigation and medical opinion about his exact condition are missing. It also appears from your letter that you did not intend to discuss this debate but rather to clarify whether efforts and investigation should continue regarding this matter. Certainly for patients like these there are good hopes for healing—even during their illness itself, G‑d forbid.

Nevertheless, so that my letter should not appear empty I will at least address some lines regarding the kuntres itself:

a) Regarding your comment on tzt"z Responsa Even HaEzer section 153 concerning what Rav Huna says about one sign from Chagigah being considered insane [see footnote], you find it difficult since the Gemara concludes that it must be done in an insane manner and requires three things. In my opinion, tzt"z's intent is simple: In this section he seeks to clarify whether insanity in one matter makes a person insane in all matters—this is debated by Rambam and Tosafot etc.—and from the sugya there it is clear that if no reason can be found for his behavior even in one thing (i.e., unless it is because he wants an impure spirit to rest upon him or similar), he would be considered insane even for just one thing.

b) Regarding your question why tzt"z does not bring Tevuos Shor when comparing Rambam's and Tosafot's opinions: Both tzt"z there and Rabbeinu HaZaken's Responsa write that Tevuos Shor forced an explanation into Rambam's words; since they do not agree with him they did not elaborate further.

c) On what you wrote in the kuntres regarding "bal tashchit" (prohibition against waste) and Rambam's language "in a destructive manner": See carefully Rabbeinu HaZaken's precise wording at the end of Hilchot Shemirat Guf VeNefesh sections 14–15 in his Shulchan Aruch; it is based on earlier authorities. Similarly one can say regarding someone who sins because a spirit of folly entered him—this relates to subduing one's inclination or anger.

d) Regarding how you conclude with tzt"z Responsa: This matter is also discussed in Responsa sections 159–160 and his novellae on Mishnayot Chagigah and Gittin chapter 7.

e) For references at the end of the kuntres among later authorities discussing this law: See also Shede Chemed, section Asifat Dinim under Gerushin section 1 among books cited there.

With honor and blessing.

Regarding your comment on Shaarei Teshuvah by Admor HaEmtza'i (Reb Dovber), section Reish Chet Alef at end of "that persecutions were nullified and will never return," which seems difficult due to later decrees (including those of our generation): See there that he refers specifically to persecutions enacted as rectification for idol worship during the First Temple era—and those souls then—all those who were sanctified during medieval times were souls from then. On this the Arizal said that by his time these persecutions had ceased because the matter was rectified and those souls ascended etc.

By the way: It is mentioned there that Ibn Ezra gave up his life for sanctification of G‑d's name. For now I have not found this elsewhere.

Summary

The Rebbe analyzes complex halachic questions about mental illness and divorce through classic sources while emphasizing hope for healing. He encourages continued investigation with medical input before drawing conclusions about halachic status.