It’s a quirk of human history that in our era science and religion are so often pitted against one

another,
especially in light of the fact a fair argument could be made that the fundamental scientific belief in a
highly complex yet perfectly ordered universe is not just shared with monotheism but was squarely
developed by it. While the universe may be seen as a well-functioning complex “machine,” people are
not – we’re quirks. In recent decades our “quirk” has swung the science and religion debate the other
way in the field of clinical psychology towards compatibility. A mere 39 years ago, one of the fathers of
Cognitive Therapy, Albert Ellis, wrote the scathing article, “The Case Against Religion.” While arguing it’s
the clinician’s duty to help all men and to improve mental health, he saw these goals as, “antithetical to
the truly religious point of view” (Ellis & Murry, 1980, p. 2). His stance was far from radical during this
time. Yet, at the turn of the century, clinical psychology has taken a sharp turn towards embracing
religious traditions leading top clinicians and researchers to humbly admit, in many ways, psychology is
finally “catching up” to the great wealth of wisdom of religious traditions (Hayes, 1984).

The shift has centered around a boom in new evidence-based approaches, cumulatively referred to as
“The Third Wave”. These new therapies have taken a radically new approach to human suffering. From
Freud to behavior therapy to cognitive therapy, the preceding psychotherapy “waves” have all assumed
treatments should be based on reducing symptoms. Far be it from this author to condemn such an
approach. Not only is it intuitively sound but decades of research from the behavioral and cognitive
traditions have proven the efficacy of this treatment approach. Yet, many research clinicians felt
research had hit a brick wall (Strosahl, 2017). The dramatic effectiveness of empirical approaches over
the psychoanalytic and psychodynamic approaches had been remarkable (Hofmann, Asnaani, Vonk,
Sawyer, & Fang, 2012) but recent research had been stalled (Strosahl, 2017). Some researchers, in meta-
analysis studies, have even observed regression in effectiveness in their outcome studies such as CBT’s
effectiveness in treating depression (Johnsen, & Friborg, 2015). While this is likely due to statistical
errors that create biased results, such as using fixed values that are not based on empirical data or using
a pre-post standardized mean difference (Cuijpers, Weitz, Cristea, I& Twisk, 2017), researchers have
been striving for improved solutions.

Third Wave approaches provided a new avenue to revitalize the field. Adding to standard CBT,
approaches like Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, Dialectic Behavior Therapy, and Meta-Cognitive
Therapy, offer new techniques and ingenious innovations to older ones – mindfulness, emotion
regulation, defusion, values development, and valuing self-compassion over self-esteem all greatly add
to the already broad intervention arsenal of therapist. Yet, these techniques, in of themselves, are not
enough of a reason to declare a paradigm shift in the field (Hayes, 2004). What truly sets these
approaches apart is the partial or total abandonment of 1) symptom reduction as a treatment goal, 2)
mechanistic thinking, 3) and the medical model in general. A process-oriented contextually based
treatment plan was developed advocating willingly accepting pain which can be summed up in a simple
equation: “pain + non-acceptance = suffering” (Hayes, 2004; Linehan, 2014). Instead of trying to reduce
the content of depressive or anxious thoughts and feelings like, “I’m worthless”, these new approaches
attempt to change the context of these experiences (Hayes, 2004; Hayes, Strosahl, & Wilson, 2011) by
developing an awareness of a deeper more true self (Linehan, 2018; Hayes, 2004) or a meta awareness
of self (Wells, 2011; Leahy, 2018). With this new orientation one is able to observe painful thoughts and
feelings as if looking, dispassionately, at a chair or coffee table in the room. Pushing one step further,
this approach dares to ask from its clients what meaning or value this pain has; what higher purpose or
calling is there that dignifies the pain enough making it worth having (Torneke, 2010; Wilson, & Murrell,
2004)?

Coming full circle, clinical psychology is beginning to take seriously deeply religious concepts in the
treatment of human suffering. No stretch of the imagination is required to see the parallels between
acceptance and ‫ביטחון‬, a non-judgmental mindset as reflecting faith in ‫השגחה פרטית וכללית‬,
mindfulness as ‫מצוות צריכה כוונה‬, and this true, more real, self as reflecting the human soul. Today,
entire therapy manuals are being drafted which not only adopt the above techniques but specifically set
out to incorporate spiritual and religious beliefs and practices into treatment (Ciarrocchi, Schechter,
Pearce, & Koeing, 2014; Ciarrocchi, Schechter, Pearce, & Rosmarin, 2014; Ciarrocchi, Schechter, Pearce,
& Vasegh, 2014). One outstanding example is Dr. David Rosmarin’s CBT manual Spirituality, Religion,
and Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (2018). There, the author makes a compelling argument with sound
research and case examples of the extreme importance of incorporating spirituality into treatment from
the very beginning. The author decisively defends his position against “old guard thinking” but what
was not covered, ironically but quite understandably given the secular audience, was the halachic
implications of this approach.

In a vignette, the author describes Susan, a 35-year-old woman suffering from severe depression. In the
course of her initial session the clinician directly engages her about her faith. She reveals that belonging
to the Mormon church is a deeply meaningful part of her life. Probing further, Susan offered several
liturgical poems that were encouraging to her and improved her life. At first blush this sounds like a
heart-warming story and its clinical use is undeniable – therapeutic grist for the mill. One clinical angle
to this case would be to draft a behavioral activation plan where the client and therapist outline a clear
daily scheduling plan to increase the behavior of prayer and church attendance. The therapist’s job
would be to both actively coach and methodically guide the client towards not only achieving this goal
but ensuring this behavior “sticks” over the long term (Martell, Dimidjian, & Herman-Dunn, 2013). As
Rosmarin shows, it’s extremely likely that enhancing one’s religious life decreases depression, fortifies
against it, decreases the chances of suicide, and increases positive affect (2018). What could be bad
about this?

And yet, there is one small catch… since when does a fine frum yid start encouraging people to go to
houses of ‫ ?עבודה זרה‬Despite convincingly arguing it’s clinically unethical for an atheist clinician to
ignore the spiritual life of his client, Rosmarin did not address how it may be religiously reprehensible for
a G-d fearing Jew to encourage his client’s spiritually questionable beliefs. Again, there is certainly no
actual fault of the author given the demographic target of his book - I am most certainly “fattening up”
the ‫ קושיא‬with my rhetoric. As an aside, I’ve spoken with the author who is constantly in contact with
‫ דעת תורה‬in these matters. Be that as it may, this article will attempt to outline the halachic
complications of incorporating religious belief in the clinical setting by outlining the parameters of our
religious obligations towards non-Jews, ‫לפני עיוור‬, ‫מסייע לדבר עבירה‬, and the status of Christianity as
‫עבודה זרה‬. Through this case example, treatment guidelines are loosely suggested. It goes without
saying every clinician should develop an intimate connection with a competent rabbinic authority who is
both knowledgeable enough of the clinician specifically and psychotherapy in general to offer clear ‫פסק‬
‫הלכה‬.
‫גוים‬
Our ‫ סוגייה‬begins in )‫ גמ' בבא מציעא (ד –יב‬which outlines seven basic obligations ‫ גוים‬have upon them.
While it’s not clear if these seven are rooted in a ‫ גזרת הכתוב‬or are so basic and intuitive that outlining
them in a spiritual revelation is unnecessary, they are the foundation for all of humanity’s '‫עבודת ה‬. The
one that most concerns us here is the ‫ איסור‬of ‫עבודה זרה‬.

At first blush, it doesn’t seem to be an important halachic consideration to be aware of these seven. It’s
easy to emphasize our differences and behave as though “we have our obligations and they have
there’s.” While there’s some truth to this, it isn’t the whole picture. Within the general halachic
framework there are two meta-categories of ‫ הלכות‬that unite individuals together in different ways.
The first is the category of ‫בין אדם לחברו‬. ‫ הלכות‬that fall within this framework do not carry with them
any obligation for Jews to go out of their way to involve themselves in the lives of ‫ גוים‬because this
meta-category, specifically, drives and motivates the unique national unity of all Jews in their service of
Hashem on a communal level. Under the second halachic meta-category, ‫בין אדם למקום‬, all of humanity
is united in the service of Hashem and obligates Jews to involve themselves on a personal level in the
lives of ‫ גוים‬in brotherly love under the obligation of ‫יח פירוש של רב ש''ר הירש( אהבת הבריות‬:‫)ויקרא יט‬.
While some ‫ הלכות‬fall under the first and others under the second, the prohibition of ‫ לפני עיוור‬lands
squarely in the latter rubric and it’s this prohibition that is the bedrock of our entire question.

‫לפני עיוור‬
The prohibition of ‫ לפני עיוור‬is found in (‫יט‬:‫ ויקרא )יד‬which states: " ‫ל ֹא ְת ַקלֵּ ל חֵּ ֵּרׁש ו ְִל ְפנֵּי ִעוֵּר ל ֹא ִת ֵּתן ִמכְ ׁשֹל‬
‫את ֵּמאֱ ֹלהֶ יָך אֲ נִי יְהוָה‬
ָ ‫" ְוי ֵָּר‬

‫( גמ' פסחים‬:‫ )כב‬and the ‫ )ספר המצוות להרמב"ם לא תעשה רצ"ט( רמב''ם‬expand this prohibition into two
separate actions – refraining from directly instigating another Jew or ‫ גוי‬in transgressing any ‫ הלכה‬as
well as a prohibition of giving bad advice (‫)להכשיל ולהשיאו אצה שאינה הוגנת‬. While some authorities
contend the latter halacha is purely within the realm of ‫ ( בין אדם לחברו‬,‫שיטת הקובץ שיעורים פסחים צה‬
)‫)חינוך רלב‬, it seems from the ‫א( מנחת חינוך‬-‫ )רלב‬that both fall under the meta-category of ‫בין אדם‬
‫למקום‬. This seems intuitively correct especially given the similar nature of the prohibition ‫מדבר שקר‬
‫ תרחק‬which equally applies to not lying to ‫גוים‬. It doesn’t seem so foreign to conceptualize giving bad
advice as sharing similar qualities to lying where in both one is actively misleading another, albeit via a
different process. (Ironically, this may technically be irrelevant to our specific question given the
prohibition of giving good advice to one who is a ‫ בעלי עבודה זרה‬or ‫; רמב"ם הלכות ( עבד רשע‬.‫גמ' ב"ב ד‬
‫טו‬:‫)רוצח ושמירת נפש יב‬. While the spirit of this halacha is to not actively aid in the dissemination of evil
beliefs and actions it, nevertheless, can be permitted to do so when ultimately for the greater social
good of the Jewish people.)

‫יד( רבינו בחיי‬:‫ )ויקרא יט‬conceptualizes ‫ לפני עיוור‬differently under the rubric of ‫ – בין אדם לעצמו‬that to
mislead another, either to cause them to transgress a prohibition or to give them bad advice is
inherently a disgusting character trait. This view would be another reason to adopt the position that
giving bad advice ought to be just as prohibited towards ‫ גוים‬as it is to Jews.

Diving into the practical detail of ‫לפני עיוור‬, the ‫( גמרא‬.‫ )ע"ז ו‬limits the ‫ דאורייתא‬level to a case where one
is instrumental in facilitating the context for the other person to transgress. ‫ חז"ל‬conceptualize this with
the image of ‫ – בתרי עברי נהרא‬two people standing on two opposite sides of a river. One hands ‫ איסור‬to
the other who would not have been able to reach it were it not for his “buddy”. Conversely, the
instigator is not considered instrumental in handing over ‫ איסור‬when both are on the same side of the
river and is not prohibited on the ‫ דאורייתא‬level.

The ‫ פוסקים‬take from this case different practical positions. The ‫ב( משנה למלך‬:‫ )מלוה ולוה ד‬outlines and
argues against the assertion of the ‫ פני משה‬that having multiple people ready to provide ‫ איסור‬would
cease making each individual instrumental – thus no longer an ‫איסור דאורייתא‬. The ‫ משנה למלך‬argues
the parameters of this law are based on assessing the ability of the one being provided ‫ איסור‬and his
independent ability to acquire it. If he himself on his own could not acquire the object, with reasonable
effort in that moment, then it would not matter if 1,000 people surrounded him providing the ‫איסור‬.
Such an act is prohibited as those providing the ‫ איסור‬are not just instrumental in of themselves, as
understood by the ‫פני משה‬, but are only significant based on the receiving individual’s lack of ability to
actualize committing the prohibition on his own.

The )‫ תורה לשמה (סי' קלג‬outlines the level of likelihood necessary for the prohibited action to become a
question of ‫לפני עיוור‬. He asserts there must be a common sense certainty that one is being
instrumental in creating circumstances that will naturally lead to transgression (giving wine to a ‫נזיר‬,
giving ‫ אבר מן החי‬to a ‫גוי‬, hitting one’s older kids, giving a loan without a ‫ ) שטר‬In none of these cases is
it a statistical certain the other will transgress but common sense dictates one is “playing with fire.”
After all, if you hand someone a drink, what do you naturally expect will happen?

However we come out in the exact definition of ‫לפני עיוור‬, our general facilitation would still be
prohibited on the rabbinic level due to ‫מסייע לדבר עבירה‬. This category, while containing exceptions
due to its rabbinic nature, does have a broader scope in its restriction. Before moving on to outlining
‫מסייע‬, it is worth briefly adding another layer of imperativeness to ‫ לפני עיוור‬when considering it’s
relationship to the ‫ג' החמורות‬. In cases like these it may carry with it the obligation of ‫יהרג ואל יעבור‬.
The ‫א( רמ"א‬:‫ )יו"ד קנז‬sides with the ‫ רמב"ן‬and ‫ ר"ן‬that this is not the case While (the ‫בעל המאור‬
disagrees )‫)סנהדרין ברי"ף יח‬.

‫מסייע לדבר עבירה‬

Although there is no explicit mention of ‫ מסייע לדבר עבירה‬in ‫ש"ס‬, it is taken as a given by the ‫ראשונים‬
and ‫ שער ( אחרונים‬,‫ ד"ה ואין‬:‫ רש"י ע"ז נו‬,‫ ד"ה אין‬:‫ תוס ע"ז נה‬,‫ ד"ה בבא‬.‫ תוס' שבת ג‬,‫א‬:‫רא"ש בגמרא שבת א‬
‫ח‬:‫ )הציון שמז‬that it extends to cases not otherwise covered by ‫לפני עיוור‬.

Some ‫ ראשונים‬limit its scope in an attempt to resolve an internal contradiction in the various ‫סוגיות‬
dealing with this issue. ‫ ד"ה מנין( תוס' ע"ז‬:‫ )גמ' ע"ז ו‬takes from the ‫ גמרא‬of passing ‫ איסור‬to others that
it is not always prohibited to facilitate others if their status is ‫ מומר‬or ‫ בעלי עבודה זרה‬as long as one is
not transgressing the ‫ דאורייתא‬of ‫לפני עיוור‬. In ‫ גמ' שבת‬the ‫ בעלי תוספות‬take for granted that the case of
two people sharing in the transfer of objects from one domain to another on ‫ שבת‬either does not
involve two Jews as otherwise it is a clear violation of ‫ ד''ה בבא( מסייע‬.‫ ) גמ' שבת ג‬or as ‫תוספות ישנים‬
explicitly assert that ‫ מסייע‬is always prohibited but that the ‫ גמרא‬is artificially discussing this case of
‫ הוצא‬independent of any consideration of ‫מסייע‬. In either case, both groups of ‫ בעלי תוספות‬in ‫גמ' שבת‬
do not avail themselves to this idea that ‫ מסייע‬is not an ever-present concern irrespective of one’s
halachic status.

Three halachic conclusions are given in the ‫ אחרונים‬and will be described below. One: we in fact follow
the latter view that ‫ מעיקר הדין‬it could be permitted in those cases but a ‫ בעל נפש‬should be stringent
(‫א‬:‫)רמ"א יו"ד קנא‬. Two: we follow the former view (‫א‬:‫ )שו"ע יו"ד קנא‬that it is always prohibited. Three:
there is no dispute between the ‫ בעלי תוספות‬and their differences are based on the topographical
features of the cases.

The ‫ו( ש"ך‬:‫ )יו"ד קנא‬argues ‫ מסייע‬is not prohibited regarding ‫מומרים‬. The ‫ ש"ך‬assumes if one is not
obligated to actively ‫ מפריש איסור‬from another then the extension of ‫ מסייע‬does not apply. This
conceptualization would extend this idea to ‫ גוים‬as we are not obligated to ‫ מפריש איסור‬from them
either. This position is tenuous for two reasons. First, it is not immediately apparent we are under no
obligation to ‫ מפריש איסור‬from ‫מומרים‬. Secondly, even if this was the case, why was this concept not
used by ‫ ?תוס' שבת‬It would have been a solid resolution of the problems ‫ תוספות‬was grappling with
there. The ‫ דגל מרבבה‬attempts to defend the ‫ ש"ך‬asserting his intention was to explain ‫ מסייע‬only
extends to cases of ‫ שוגג‬but not ‫מזיד‬. A similar position is offered in the )‫ שו"ת בנין ציון (טו‬that the
distinction between the two cases amongst the ‫ בעלי תוספות‬hinges on the timing of the help. Any
assistance preceding the prohibited act would be permitted while aid during the act itself would be
forbidden.

Having established the parameters of ‫מסייע‬, it remains to be shown if this ‫ דרבנן‬extends to ‫ גוים‬as well,
especially in light of the ‫)תראה כתב סופר יו"ד פג ד"ה והנה הש"ך( ש''ך‬. The ‫ ורש"י ד"ה דורכין( גמרא‬.‫)ע"ז נה‬
discusses a case where a Jew, working with his ‫ גוי‬boss in Israel are trampling grapes in the preparation
of wine. It is prohibited to make the fruits of Israel ‫טמא‬, which is indeed what the ‫ גוי‬is doing in this
process. ‫ רש"י‬points out it is only permitted for the Jew to participate (‫ )מסייע‬in this process because
this prohibition is not included in the ‫שבעה מצוות בני נח‬. If this wasn’t the case, it certainly would have
been prohibited. The ‫א( שו"ע‬:‫ )יו"ד קנא‬takes as a given this rabbinic injunction applies to ‫ גוים‬as well.
Some would disagree.

Later in the above ‫( גמרא‬:‫ רש"י )נה‬asserts ‫ מסייע‬is its own prohibition distinct from the obligation to
‫מפריש איסור‬. ‫ רש"י‬elsewhere (‫ במשנה שם‬.‫ )גיטין סא‬further argues the timing of aid (in of itself as its
own factor) is an irrelevant consideration. Taken together, this view stands in stark contrast to the ‫ש"ך‬
and the above views. The ‫ד( מגן אברהם‬:‫)או''ח שמז‬, cites ‫ רש"י‬warning to not run so quickly to permit in
accordance with the ‫ש''ך‬. One leniency ‫ רש"י‬does advocate is that for ‫ דרכי שלום‬before engaging in the
prohibited act, one would be allowed to render aid (‫ במשנה שם‬.‫)גיטין סא‬. In a similar vein the ‫נצי"ב‬
extends this position that before the prohibited act one is also permitted to render aid when ‫לשם‬
‫פרנסה‬.

‫סיכום‬
Based on the above, it is prohibited for ‫ גוים‬to engage in ‫עבודה זרה‬. There is a clear prohibition on the
‫ דאורייתא‬level to instrumentally cause a Jew and ‫ גוי‬alike to transgress his obligations to Hashem. The
definition of “instrumental” is a matter of dispute in the ‫פוסקים‬. Those cases not otherwise included in
‫ לפני עיוור‬is still Rabbinically prohibited by ‫מסייע‬. It is a matter of dispute in the ‫ פוסקים‬if this rabbinic
injunction does not apply in the following circumstances: for ‫גוים‬, ‫מומרים‬, or those acting ‫במזיד‬. It may,
however, be possible leading up to the prohibited act to permit ‫ מסייע‬for the sake of ‫ דרכי שלום‬or
‫פרנסה‬.

As regards to the second aspect of ‫לפני עיוור‬, giving bad advice, this may or may not apply to ‫ גוים‬based
on ones understanding of the basic premise underlying the prohibition: If it’s primarily an obligation to
Hashem or one’s self it would be prohibited while if it’s an obligation to one’s fellow Jew, it would be
permitted.
Treatment Implication in Light of ‫לפני עיוור ומסייע‬
Taking the above, any evidence-based treatment that has the goal of increasing behaviors of ‫עבודה זרה‬
would qualify as ‫לפני עיוור‬. The question is if the clinician is integral to the process based on the concept
of ‫בתרי עברי נהרא‬. While it is true, at the beginning of treatment, technically the client could have
come to any other clinician and that there are usually other service providers in a city (see the ‫פנה משה‬
and ‫ משנה למלך‬above) it does not seem realistic to apply this ‫ היתר‬here. It is standard practice to enter
into a treatment contract with one’s client outlining the services that will be rendered – one of which,
either explicitly outlined in the treatment contracts or verbally agreed upon, is that a client will not seek
treatment for the same target problems from another clinician. Such a move is quite often damaging to
treatment especially when the treatment modalities contradict one another (Hayes, Strosahl, & Wilson,
2011). Further, no treatment does not exist in of itself in abstract. The therapeutic relationship is a
necessary element to all treatment modalities that require a personal commitment, on some level, with
the clinician himself as a professional and as a person (Wampold, 2013). When a client walks into the
clinical setting, for all intense and purposes, there are no other options.

An argument can be made that some interventions would qualify as ‫ לפני עיוור‬and others only ‫מסייע‬. In
the above case, assuming Mormonism would qualify as ‫( עבודה זרה‬discussed below) techniques like
behavioral activation in attending church services which would not have otherwise been attended due
to depression would qualify as ‫לפני עיוור‬. Actively drawing upon ‫ עבודה זרה‬behaviors, beliefs, prayers,
etc. in order to enhance the motivation of the client to stick with treatment would likewise be ‫לפני עיוור‬.

Not all mental health problems are as behaviorally incapacitating, in the same way, as depression. What
about clients who do already draw from their ‫ עבודה זרה‬beliefs but the clinician is leveraging them
within therapy? One example would be using prayer in an exposure treatment to increase motivation to
continue with the intervention for longer periods of time. The client has prayer as a standard part of his
life and may in fact pray already to get through tough times – even during an intervention. For all
intense and purposes, the client would indeed do such things on his own. The only difference is the
specific suggestion of the therapist to always use this behavior in specific ways and situations
consistently. These types of interventions would fall under the category of ‫מסייע‬. Here we have two
considerations to permit. First, this case appears to be a ‫ ספק ספקא‬1) it is not clear if ‫ מסייע‬applies to
‫ גוים‬in the first place. 2) Even if it does, since he is already engaging in this behavior ‫ במזיד‬it would be
permitted, ‫בדיעבד‬. More than this, given the position of some ‫ אחרונים‬that for ‫ פרנסה‬such
interventions would be permitted ‫ לכתחילה‬as long as the intervention stops short of actually engaging in
the behavior then it would seem that a clinician would be allowed, ‫לכתחילה‬, to discuss the use of
religious beliefs and actions in the context of improving one’s life and establishing out-of-session
experiments as homework but a clinician would not be able to actively practice using these strategies in
an in vivo way with the clinician coaching their use in the moment. Taking a more common-sense
approach, it’s infinitely better to couch one’s suggestions and descriptions within a Jewish theological
context. If the client, on his own volition, translates that into his own faith tradition that is
unfortunately out of our hands.

The last sticking point in this question would be the question of if ‫עצה שאינה הוגנת‬. As mentioned
above, this would be permitted for the sake of positively impacting the Jewish people. Regarding ‫גוים‬
who are not ‫ בעלי עבודה זרה‬the majority of ‫ פוסקים‬agree this aspect does not apply in general and that
one is obligated to be weary of the prohibition of ‫ עצה שאינה הוגנת‬with them.
As an interesting aside, it is taken for granted that Jews are obligated to die '‫ על קידוש ה‬when faced with
the ‫ג' חמורות‬. This is unique to Jews and is not an obligation shared by ‫גוים‬. While murder may be
different, given it is not derived from a ‫ גזרת הכתוב‬but from ‫סברא‬, it would be permitted for a ‫ גוי‬to
seek lifesaving treatment that makes use of ‫ב( עבודה זרה‬-‫ )רמב"ם מלכים י‬being under no obligation to
sacrifice his life. However, this is not to say it would be permitted for others to render such treatment
as outlined above.

‫עבודה זרה‬
Central to this question is defining which religions are idolatrous. On one end of the spectrum are
eastern religions such as Hinduism which, at best, is a henotheistic prescribing devotion to a single deity
while accepting the existence of others. At worst, it is a polytheistic religion with a pantheon of
different deities (Michaels, 2004) – either way, not monotheistic. On the other end rests Islam. The
‫ )שו"ת הרמב"ם סימן תמח( רמב''ם‬defines it as a true monotheistic tradition:

,‫ יחוד כראוי‬,'‫ יתע‬,‫ והם מיחדים לאל‬.‫ וכבר נכרתה מפיהם ומלבם‬,‫אלו הישמעאלים אינם עובדי ע"ז כלל‬
‫ נכרתה ע"ז מפיהם; וטעותם וטפשותם‬,‫ טף ונשים‬,‫ וכן אלו הישמעאלים היום כולם‬...‫יחוד שאין בו דופי‬
.‫ אין להם טעות כלל‬,'‫ יתע‬,‫ אבל ביחוד השם‬...‫בדברים אחרים היא‬

In the case of Christianity, the situation is exponentially more complex given the splintered movement’s
views of God being “made up” of three components: God’s undefinable self as “The Father,” His human
manifestation as “The Son,” and His spiritual presence on Earth as “The Spirit.” The three individuals are
distinct but at the same time one "substance, essence or nature" (Kreeft, 2001 Catechism of the Catholic
Church §253). Complicating Christianity’s classification is that some denominations take a
nontrinitarian stance denounce the Trinity as a heretical idea with no scriptural source. Examples
include Arians, Christadelphians, Mormons, Witnesses, and some Gnostics. Even here there is no
unified position – some, like the Arians look at “The Son” as subordinate but God’s first creation. God is
seen as a primordial creator while the Son refashions creation giving it order (Pelikan, 2005 The Seventh
Arian Confession). Others, like Gnostics, see the Son as a celestial being who had no part in creation.
This point gets fuzzy as different Gnostic views of the Son range from being an emanation of God but
distinct from Him to simply being a type of angel (Logan, 2006). This is similar to Witnesses who
advocate worshiping the Son and praying to God through him (Metzger, 1953). The Church of Christ
sees the Son as human but imbued with superhuman spiritual qualities; while subordinate to God, God
wants humanity to still worship the Son (Harper, 2017). Mormons reject the idea of a unified Trinity but
advance the idea of social trinitarianism which regards God the Father as the supreme being and father
of all of humanity but that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are equally divine sharing in the Father's
"comprehension of all things” (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1981) Suffice it to say,
even these non-trinitarians do not parallel Islam in the slightest. Even in those views, like the Church of
Christ, which makes the boldest distinction between the Father and the Son, still demand worship of a
non-God entity which would still constitute ‫עבודה זרה‬.

Looking to the ‫גמרא‬, ):‫ז‬-.‫ )עבודה זרה ו‬there is a discussion regarding the prohibition of purchasing goods
from ‫ בעלי עבודה זרה‬on their holidays including several days before and after. The uncensored text
reads:

‫ נוצרי לדברי רבי ישמעאל לעולם אסור‬:‫אמר רב תחליפא בר אבדימי אמר שמואל‬
Given the above, this begs the question – which Christians? One key to deciphering the meaning of the
statement of ‫ שמואל‬would be to analyze the Christianity of his time that he felt correlated to what ‫רבי‬
‫ ישמעאל‬was referring to. ‫( רב שרירא גאון‬Rabinowich, 1988) dates ‫ שמואל‬as living between 165 CE in
Nehardea and dying there in 254 CE. For historical bearing, Constantine convened the first Council of
Nicaea codifying Christian doctrine in 325 CE leading Rome’s adoption of Christianity as the state
religion in 393 CE.

While Christian tradition asserts missionary efforts began immediately in ancient Babylon and did not
suffer anti-Christian persecutions, as occurred in the West, until 224 CE (Baum & Winkler, 2003), it is
difficult to tell what the development of Christian Theology was during this early period. What is
definitive is that the development of Christianity during the time of ‫ שמואל‬was heavily influenced by the
School of Antioch located in modern Turkey. This school, when compared to its western counterparts,
took a more literalistic stance in their understanding of their Bible which is most pronounced in their
ideas of the unique divinity of Jesus. (Cross, 2005). Early scholars from this school took an Adoptionism
view of Jesus as being born non-divine but was “adopted” by God as a sort of “sub-deity” although
divine. By 264 CE the Christian leaders at Antioch ultimately declared this view heretical in favor of a
Trinitarianism (Hindson & Mitchell, 2013) but by this time the Adoptionism theology had spread into
Iraq and accounts for the development of another stance on Jesus’s divinity – Nestorianism. This view
asserted Jesus as being separately man and divine as two distinct aspects (Bentley, 1993) and was
embraced by the Assyrian Eastern Church (Wilhelm & Winkler, 2003)

What emerges from this is that the form of Christianity ‫ שמואל‬was exposed to in Nehardea was what
later developed into the Eastern Persian Church an ant-Trinity denomination. While one cannot argue
they separated Jesus from God, there was clearly a hierarchy where Jesus’s divine qualities were
thought to be a creation from God separate from Him. From the ‫ גמרא‬alone, this does not bode well for
the halachic category of nontrinitarian Christians and should be explored further. The intricacy of
Christian doctrine presented here adds another layer to ‫ שיטת שמואל‬removing its first blush simplicity –
after all, if his view was remarking upon the Trinity, there would be no ‫ חידוש‬in the ‫ ;דין‬of course, such a
view is ‫ עבודה זרה‬in nature! However, discussing the more complicated case of Jesus’s sub-divinity and
God being able to imbue into His creation His quality of divinity is a perfect grey area needing ‫ פסק‬giving
meaning to the phrase "‫ "לעולם אסור‬as “even in those instances one could argue Christian doctrine is not
quite idolatrous – even in such cases it certainly is!”

Be that as it may, we find three positions in the ‫ ראשונים‬taken on Christianity’s Trinitarian incarnations.
The ‫ רמב"ם‬unequivocally rules Christianity is ‫ד( עבודה זרה‬:‫)ע"ז ט‬. The ‫ א( מאירי‬,‫)בית הבחירה ע"ז כב‬
categorically rejects the idea of modern Christianity as having the status of ‫ עבודה זרה‬and goes so far as
to argue all laws concerning ‫ בעלי עבודה זרה‬simply do not apply to them as they have “purified” the
world from true paganism:

‫וכבר התבאר שדברים הללו נאמרו לאותם הזמנים שהיו אותם האומות מעובדי האלילים והיו מזוהמים‬
‫ אבל שאר אומות שהם גדורים בדרכי הדתות ושהם נקיים מכעורים‬. . . ‫במעשיהם ומכעורים במדותיהם‬
.‫שבמדות הללו ואדרבה שמענישים עליהם אין ספק שאין הדברים הללו מקום להם כלל‬

This view, until recently, has received little attention. Even today it is considered a minority view. The
third view is the position of ‫ תוספות‬in :‫)ד"ה אסור לאדם( גמ' סנהדרין סג‬. The ‫גמרא‬, there, is considering if
one is allowed to enter into a partnership with ‫ בעלי עבודה זרה‬out of a concern that this will lead to the
‫ עבודה זרה‬partner to eventually swear in the name of his deity. This case and another in ‫גמ' עבודה זרה‬
:‫ ו‬regarding the permissibility of providing ‫ אבר מן החי‬to a ‫ גוי‬both demonstrate the ‫ איסור דאורייתא‬of
‫ לפני עיוור‬exists between Jews and ‫גוים‬.

‫ תוספות‬takes the position that while ‫ לכתחילה‬one should not enter into business partnerships with
Christians, ‫ בדיעבד‬one is not transgressing the prohibition of ‫ לפני עיוור‬due to the peculiarity of the
concept of the Trinity. ‫ תוספות‬asserts this ‫ שיתוף‬between Hashem and the other aspects of the Trinity
places enough strain in this case to not hold the Jew culpable only as long as the ‫ בעל עבודה זרה‬refers to
God and no other deities (such as the latter two aspects of the Trinity). To be clear, such leeway for a
Jew certainly does not exist (:‫)גמ' סנהדרין סג‬.

The ‫ב(רמ"א‬:‫ )דרכי משה אורח חיים קנו‬adopting a similar position of ‫ תוספות‬while quoting the ‫ ר"ן‬takes on
this idea of ‫ שיתוף‬to ‫ לכתחילה‬permit entering into partnerships with Christians. What is not clear is how
far to take this position. While some would argue to take ‫ תוספות‬and the ‫ רמ"א‬as a car-blanch ‫ היתר‬for
‫ גוים‬to worship Hashem in this way, others (‫ )נודע ביהודה יורה דעה קמח‬indeed restrict the intention of
both ‫ תוספות‬and ‫ רמ"א‬to only a question of oaths in line with the ‫ב( רמב"ם‬:‫ )שבעות יא‬to which he
asserts ‫ גוים‬are not restricted in and that it is unquestionably forbidden for ‫ גוים‬to adopt a ‫ שיתוף‬based
theology as well.

The position of the ‫ נודע ביהודה‬against the permissibility of ‫ שיתוף‬is also mirrored by numerous ‫ פוסקים‬-
‫ב( פרי מגדים‬:‫)אורח חיים קנב‬, ‫ב( מחצית השקל‬:‫)אורח חיים קנב‬, ‫)אורח חיים קנב( חתם סופר‬, ‫מנחת חינוך‬
(‫א‬:‫)פו‬, ‫ב( פסקי תשובה‬:‫)יורה דעה קמז‬, and ‫יב(דרכי תשובה‬:‫)יורה דעה קמז‬.

‫סיכום‬
‫ גוים‬from other religions that adopt a pure monotheistic view of Hashem, like Islam, are not considered
‫בעלי עבודה זרה‬. There are extremely few Christian sects which meet this criterion. How we historically
understand the position of ‫ שמואל‬may limit this quite considerably. These considerations would find
expression in the position of the ‫ רמב"ם‬alone. The ‫ מאירי‬would consider Christians ‫ מאמינים‬without
question, while ‫ תוספות‬would consider them ‫ מאמינים‬handicapped by the idea of ‫שיתוף‬,
notwithstanding the ‫נודע ביהודה‬. It appears that the majority of modern day ‫ פוסקים‬side with the ‫רמב"ם‬
making the above historical questions more poignant.

The final aspect of prohibition to consider in this case is not just active service of idols but the distinct
prohibition of causing a ‫ בעלי עבודה זרה‬to simply praise his deity - )‫יג‬:‫– לא ישמע על פיך (שמות כג‬
whether or not in the context of official prayer and that anything that would realistically lead them to do
so is prohibited via rabbinic decree (‫ תראה רש''י שם‬.‫)גמ' עבודה זרה ו‬.

Conclusion
Returning to our client, Sarah the Mormon, we now see treatment options for her case of depression
can be wrought with difficulty from the halachic perspective. Based on ‫ שמואל‬and historically
excavating his brand of Christianity, there is reason to assert that despite her nontrinitarian doctrines
she would still be considered a ‫בעלי עבודה זרה‬. Even were we to ignore this point, it is difficult to draw
clear distinctions between different Christian doctrines unless adopting either the position of ‫ תוספות‬or
the ‫רמ"א‬. When treating any ‫ בעלי עבודה זרה‬we squarely face transgressing the prohibition of ‫לפני עיוור‬
and most certainly ‫מסייע‬. Any act which immediately and instrumentally moves this client to any service
or praise of their deity is strictly prohibited. In cases where therapeutic interventions do not meet these
qualifications, there are several halachic justifications to suspend the rabbinical prohibition of ‫מסייע‬.
Even still, it is a question left to each therapist if he feels justified to proceed with treatment and seems
to me a question largely governed by individual and local communal considerations.

Bibliography
Baum, W., & Winkler, D. W. (2003). The church of the east: A concise history (Vol. 1). Routledge.

Bentley, J. H. (1993). Old world encounters: Cross-cultural contacts and exchanges in pre-modern times.
Oxford University Press, USA.

Ciarrocchi, J. W., Schechter, D., Koenig, H. G., & Pearce, M. J. (2014). Religious Cognitive Behavioral
Therapy (Christian Version): 10-session treatment manual for depression in clients with chronic physical
illness. Center for Integrative Medicine University of Maryland School of Medicine.

Ciarrocchi, J. W., Schechter, D., Rosmarin, D., & Pearce, M. J. (2014). Religious Cognitive Behavioral
Therapy (Jewish Version): 10-session treatment manual for depression in clients with chronic physical
illness. Center for Integrative Medicine University of Maryland School of Medicine.

Ciarrocchi, J. W., Schechter, D., Vasegh, S., & Pearce, M. J. (2014). Religious Cognitive Behavioral Therapy
(Muslim Version): 10-session treatment manual for depression in clients with chronic physical illness.
Center for Integrative Medicine University of Maryland School of Medicine.

Cross, F. L., (2005). The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. New York: Oxford University Press.

Cuijpers, P., Weitz, E., Cristea, I. A., & Twisk, J. (2017). Pre-post effect sizes should be avoided in meta-
analyses. Epidemiology and psychiatric sciences, 26(4), 364-368.

Harper, A. C. (2017). Understanding the Iglesia Ni Cristo: What They Really Believe and How They Can Be
Reached. Wipf and Stock Publishers.

Hayes, S. C. (2004). Acceptance and commitment therapy, relational frame theory, and the third wave of
behavioral and cognitive therapies. Behavior therapy, 35(4), 639-665.

Hayes, S. C. (1984). Making sense of spirituality. Behaviorism, 12, 99-110.

Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K. D., & Wilson, K. G. (2011). Acceptance and commitment therapy: The process
and practice of mindful change. Guilford Press.

Hindson, E. E., & Mitchell, D. R. (2013). The Popular Encyclopedia of Church History: The People, Places,
and Events That Shaped Christianity. Harvest House Publishers.

Johnsen, T. J., & Friborg, O. (2015). The effects of cognitive behavioral therapy as an anti-depressive
treatment is falling: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 141(4), 747.

Kreeft, P. (2001). Catholic Christianity: A complete catechism of Catholic beliefs based on the Catechism
of the Catholic Church. Ignatius Press.

Leahy, R. L. (2018). Emotional schema therapy: distinctive features. Routledge.

Linehan, M. M. (2018). Cognitive-behavioral treatment of borderline personality disorder. Guilford
Publications.

Linehan, M. (2014). DBT Skills training manual. Guilford Publications.

Logan, A. (2006). The Gnostics: identifying an early Christian cult. A&C Black.

Martell, C. R., Dimidjian, S., & Herman-Dunn, R. (2013). Behavioral activation for depression: A clinician's
guide. Guilford Press.

Metzger, B. M. (1953). The Jehovah's Witnesses and Jesus Christ: A Biblical and Theological Appraisal.
Theology Today, 10(1), 65-85.

Michaels, Axel (2004), Hinduism. Past and present, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Neil Jacobson, Dimidjian, S., Hollon, S. D., Dobson, K. S., Schmaling, K. B., Kohlenberg, R. J., Addis, M. E.,
... & Atkins, D. C. (2006). Randomized trial of behavioral activation, cognitive therapy, and
antidepressant medication in the acute treatment of adults with major depression. Journal of consulting
and clinical psychology, 74(4), 658.

Pelikan, J. (2005). Credo: Historical and theological guide to creeds and confessions of faith in the
Christian tradition (Vol. 4). Yale University Press.

Rabinowich, N. D. (Ed.). (1988). The Iggeres of Rav Sherira Gaon. Rabbi Jacob Joseph School Press,
Ahavath Torah Inst. Moznaim.

Rosmarin, D. (2018). Spirituality, Religion, and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy: A Guide for Clinicians: The
Guilford Press.

Strosahl, K. (2017). Goodfellow Unit Webinar: Focused Acceptance and Commitment Therapy with Kirk
Strosahl. Retrieved at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVy3SvV7Apo&t=3113s

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (1981). Doctrine and Covenants Instructor’s Guide:
Religion 324–325. Salt Lake City.

Wampold, B. E. (2013). The great psychotherapy debate: Models, methods, and findings. Routledge.

Wells, A. (2011). Metacognitive therapy for anxiety and depression. Guilford press.

Wilson, K. G., & Murrell, A. R. (2004). Values work in acceptance and commitment therapy. Mindfulness
and acceptance: Expanding the cognitive-behavioral tradition, 120-151.