Drugs

CURR 247-250

PSYCHEDELIC DRUGS

Is the use of the so-called psychedelic drugs as a spur to religious insight known or justified in Judaism? Aside from the claimed inspirational effect of the drugs, would Jewish tradition condone the use of such drugs? (Mrs. Maurice Samuel, Editor of Keeping Posted, UAHC, New York.)

THE question of the use of psychedelic drugs is a difficult one to discuss on the basis of Jewish legal (and other) literature. Yet the very reason for this difficulty is to the credit of the Jewish experience and tradition. Though the Jews have lived for centuries in contact with the Orient and in the Arab lands (where the use of various drugs, opium, hashish, etc., was prevalent) there is no statement of which I am aware in the entire legal literature as to any sort of drug addiction. They knew, of course, of the existence and the use of anesthetic drugs, as in the discussion in the Talmud (Kiddushin 21b) which deals with the painless piercing of the ear of a Hebrew slave. But the whole Jewish literary experience seems to know nothing of drug addiction, nor for that matter does it know anything of addiction to alcohol (i.e., the actual disease of alcoholism as opposed to occasional drunkenness). The question therefore must be discussed by analogy with related matters, as is frequently necessary in the discussion of certain modern topics and their connection with our traditional literature.

First, then, as to the use of a drug as a spur to religious inspiration or revelation or illumination: The ancients, of course, had a great belief in the significance of dreams and considered that knowledge could be imparted by God to man through a dream. That is why Deuteronomy 13:2 couples “that prophet” with “that dreamer of dreams,” but it is noticeable that the “dreamer of dreams” is used in a deprecatory fashion of the false prophet, since dreams are so complex and therefore easy to misinterpret and to be used as a means of misleading. Jeremiah discusses the prophets and the dreamers and (even though he believes there can be true dreams) he speaks of the false prophets in relation to dreams. See Jeremiah 23:25: “I have heard what the prohets have said, that prophesy lies in my name, saying: ‘I have dreamed, I have dreamed.’ ”

The Jewish philosophers of the Middle Ages who were deeply concerned with the question of revelation and the vehicles of revelation generally agree with the opinion of Maimonides, namely, that while revelation may come through dreams, such revelation is usually symbolic and mystic and needs to be interpreted. The true revelation comes through the clear intellect. Therefore the more the intellect is developed and refined and kept free from confusing passions, the more likelihood there is of Divine communication and revelation. All. this is discussed clearly by Maimonides in his Hilchos Yesodey Torah, VII, 6. He bases this opinion upon the statement of Rabbi Jochanan in the Talmud ( Nedarim 38a). In other words, the essence of the Jewish position seems to be that the proper road in the search for God is through the calm intellect and not through the superheated emotions.

Now as to whether it is proper to take drugs at all: Again this question can only be discussed by analogy. The one available analogy is that of drunkenness. Judaism has never been ascetic, forbidding the drinking of wine. On the con trary, it has made wine a part of many a religious service. Nevertheless it is sternly against drunkenness. The Bible, especially in Proverbs, denounces drunkenness. The priests are prohibited in Scripture from conducting the sacred service if they even taste liquor. See Leviticus 10:8: “And the Lord spoke unto Aaron saying: ‘Drink no wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tent of meeting, that ye die not; it shall be a statute forever throughout your generations.’ ” After the Temple was destroyed, the prayer services were considered to be the substitute for the Temple sacrifices. Therefore the same prohibition against drunkenness at the Temple sacrifices was applied to prayer. The Talmud says (Erubin 64a): “A man who is drunk shall not pray. If he does pray, his prayer is an abomination.” Also in Berachos 31b the Talmud says that if a man who is drunk prays, it is as if he has worshiped an idol. It is clear, therefore, that any sort of befuddling of the clear mind was considered a hindrance to a true and sincere religious life.

But there is a further consideration involved: Medical opinion (in a report to the American College Health Association) indicates that many addicts of LSD have gravely endangered their health and tend to increase the danger of general addiction, feeling a compulsion to recruit others to the use of the drug. With regard to the danger to health, Jewish law is clear: It is forbidden to a person ever to endanger himself (except, of course, under the special conditions of martyrdom for the sake of religious conviction, when one must accept death rather than give up the faith). But in general the law is clear that a person must never endanger his health or his safety. These various laws are summed up in the Shulchan Aruch, Yore Deah 116. See especially the statement of Moses Isserles to 116:5 in which he says: “A man must be careful with regard to all matters that bring him into danger, for danger is even more serious than (other) prohibitions.” (b. Hullin 10a).

To sum up: According to the spirit of Judaism, the path to religious knowledge is the clear mind, not the confused emotions. Any sort of drunkenness or bemusing of the senses is an impediment to true worship, and any willful endangering of the health is strongly prohibited by the Jewish legal tradition.

CARR 123

CCAR RESPONSA

Contemporary American Reform Responsa

74. Drugs and Mystical

Experience

QUESTION: Is it possible to use mind altering drugs in order

to attain a mystical experience? (K. V., Los Angeles, CA)ANSWER: The Jewish

attitude toward mystical experience is shaped by halakhic and kabalistic views.

Normative Judaism has been antimystical, or at least suspicious of mysticism. The

Talmud cautioned that such literature not be studied until the student is mature (M. Hag.

2.1; 13b). Sometimes this struggle between the two forms of Judaism may be found in a single

individual, such as Joseph Caro, author of both the Shulhan Arukh and the mystical

Magid Mishnah (R. J. Z. Werblowsky, Joseph Karo, Lawyer and

Mystic). The various Jewish philosophical and mystical works, which deal with

heightened states of awareness of whatever form, demand that they be attained through study,

introspection, the observance of the mitzvot, and a life of piety. External stimulants are,

to the best of my knowledge, not mentioned by authorities in this field, like Gershom

Scholem. As psychedelic drugs promote no assurance that a “heightened state of

awareness” will be attained, we would, therefore, have to classify such a use of these drugs as

seeking pleasure. This is prohibited by Judaism; that question has been treated in another

responsum. Mind altering drugs, therefore, may not be used by Jews to induce a “heightened

sense of religious awareness” or to seek a mystical experience.May 1985

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

CARR 120-123

CCAR RESPONSA

Contemporary American Reform Responsa

73. Mind Altering Drugs for

Pleasure

QUESTION: What is the Jewish attitude toward using addictive

psychedelic (mind altering) drugs for pleasure in a manner akin to the use of alcohol, tobacco, coffee or tea? (M. D., Miami, FL)

ANSWER: There is very little discussion in the

traditional halakhic literature about the use of drugs. The codes, as well as earlier sources, and the responsa occasionally refer to samim (drugs) and their use; this category includes all drugs. Furthermore, the paucity of references indicate that this was not a serious problem until the latter part of the twentieth century. Even when Jews lived in societies which utilized addictive drugs widely among certain classes, we seem to have escaped that phenomenon.

The Talmud quotes Rav Hiyah who was cautioned by his father,

Rab, “not to get into the habit of taking drugs” (Pes. 113a), but we do not know their nature. This work also recognized that some individuals react distinctively to drugs and that they affect various parts of the body differently (Eruv 54a; Nid. 30b). It warned against use of eye paint which had been mixed with drugs, as the vapors might be injurious when inhaled (Nid. 55b). Interestingly enough, when Rashbam commented on Pes. 113a, he mentions that this was a caution against drugs which may become habit forming, and, therefore, expensive. Then he concluded by stating that drugs should never be used if some other form of medicine was available. From his perspective there was no danger of drug abuse among the Jewish population.

Alcohol was the substance most likely to be abused; tradition was well

acquainted with this problem, and it dealt with it in a straightforward fashion.

In the

Biblical period, abstinence was admired and was one qualification for becoming a Nazirite (Nu. 6.8). This state entered by a vow seems to have been of limited duration. For most people the maximum period was six years (M. Nazir 1.4; Ber. 73a; Ned. 3b). Some people in Talmudic times abstained without taking the vow of a Nazirite (Shab. 139a; B. B. 60b).

Alcohol

was rendered partially harmless through its continual ritual use in the qiddush, which is part of virtually every Jewish holiday and all joyful life cycle events. The limit of consumption was defined as a reviit. Beyond that there are two states of inebriation: shetui and shikur. Shetui refers to a person who may be shaky but can speak coherently in the presence of a king; a shikur is one who can not do so (Eruv 64a). Such an individual may also be called “drunk as Lot” and is likely to be totally incoherent similar to a shoteh (Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayim 99.1; Yoreh Deah 244.13). If an individual in this state orders a divorce, the scribe may not write it (Yad Hil. Gerushin 2.14). Such an individual is not criminally responsible for his actions even if he causes an injury (Joel Sirkes, Responsa #62). However, when he becomes sober he must pay for the damages done.

An individual who is to act as a judge may not take the slightest drink (Joel

Sirkes, Responsa #41), although if this individual sleeps or walks a certain distance after drinking a small amount, and so counters the effect of the alcohol, he may act as judge (Ibid. #140). There is some discussion about the weaker nature of modern wines in contrast to wines of former times, but the conclusion remains that those who drink can not render judgment (Bet Yosef to Tur; Shulhan ArukhHoshen Mishpat 7.4)

There is even

some discussion in the traditional literature about the statement which exempts a groom from various mitzvot, such as the recitation of the shema. Some authorities felt that this was because the groom should devote himself to conjugal mitzvot (Tosafot; Rosh) while others, like Isserlein, felt that he was not obligated as he might be under the influence of alcohol (Terumat Hadeshen, Vol. I #42; Havot Yair, #66). The Midrashic literature contains numerous citations which deal with the positive effect of wine as well as its negative influence. Moderation is encouraged while over-indulgence should be avoided (Ps. 104.15; Jud. 9.13; Prov. 31.6, 21.17, 9.1-6; Ez. 44.21; Is. 1.13; Ned. 20b; San. 70b; Eruv 65a; Ket. 8b; Meg 7b; Gen. Rabbah 36.7, etc.). For example, Ilai indicated that an individual was judged in three ways, by his drinking, his spending and his temperament (Eruv 65b). Drunkenness, in both men and women, was recognized as an evil which could only lead to wickedness (Ket. 65a; Lev. Rabbah 12.4). There was some discussion by Rambam and others about those who occasionally imbibed too much and those who have become alcoholics (Maimonides, Responsa #16 and 17. Such an individual is disqualified as cantor (Isaac Spector, Ein Yitzhak, Vol. 1, #1).

Tradition has been much slower in dealing with the other habit

forming items such as tobacco, coffee or tea. These can all be considered hazardous to health to a greater or lesser degree. Jewish tradition has prohibited individuals from wounding themselves. In fact, a person should remove all possible dangers to life (Deut. 4.9, 4.15, Ber. 32b; B. K. 91.b; Yad Hil. Rotzeah Ushemirah Hanefesh 11.4; Hil. Shevuot 5.57; Hil. Hovel Umaziq 5.1). Smoking has only recently been condemned through a number of strongly worded responsa and articles (M. Aberbach, Smoking and the Halakhah, Tradition, Vol. 10, pp. 49 ff; F. Rosner, Modern Medicine and Jewish Law, pp. 25 ff; M. Feinstein Noam, Vol. 24; “Ban on Smoking in the Synagogue” in this volume). Moses Feinstein has followed the classical pattern in this matter by stating that as a great many individuals are involved, it is better to leave them ignorant of the prohibition so that they “sin unwittingly rather than knowingly” (Igrot Mosheh, Yoreh Deah, Vol. 2, #49). As a large number of scholars and pious individuals, including Baal Shem Tov, smoked, it was difficult for traditional authorities to move in this direction. The real danger of tobacco did not become known until the middle of the twentieth century.

Although coffee and tea contain drugs which may be dangerous, it is not

currently felt that this is a major health hazard comparable to psychedelic drugs, alcohol or tobacco.

The traditional attitude toward alcohol and tobacco, which are habit-forming,

has been to encourage moderation. Psychedelic drugs are far more dangerous to health and are used without the social controls provided by Judaism for the ritual use of alcohol. We would, therefore, conclude that the use of psychedelic drugs for pleasure is forbidden by Judaism. We should also note that they are also prohibited under the well-known principle of dina d’malakhuta dina (the law of the land is the law). As the law of the United States makes the use of these drugs illegal, we must abide by that law.

May 1985

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

CARR 119-120

CCAR RESPONSA

Contemporary American Reform Responsa

72. Medical Use of Psychedelic

Drugs

QUESTION: What is the Jewish attitude toward using addictive

psychedelic (mind altering) drugs as part of the healing process? Such drugs would be used

under the direction of a physician to deal with severe psychological disturbance. (M. S.,

Cleveland, OH)ANSWER: A wide variety of drugs have been described by the

Talmud, although none of them seem to have been mind altering (Julius Preuss, Biblical and

Talmudic Medicine, translated by Fred Rosner, pp. 433 ff). Various medieval physicians

have given us the name of the drugs which they used. The most extensive list is that of

Maimonides which contains more than two thousands items. We recognize that the medicinal

use of drugs has expanded vastly in the last century and has become a regular part of medical

treatment. This form of treatment, as well as all others, should be used under the general

permission provided by the statements, “And he shall surely be healed,” and “You shall live by

them” (Ex. 21.19). When there is danger to life, the physician is encouraged to utilize all means

at his disposal (Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 116). The use of drugs in order to aid healing

under the prescription of a physician is, therefore, permitted. It makes no difference whether the

drugs are mind altering or not, as long as they have been prescribed to heal those who

areMay 1985

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

NARR 239-241

CCAR RESPONSA

New American Reform Responsa

151. DRUGS TO RELIEVE PAIN

QUESTION: Does Jewish tradition set a limit to the use of drugs in order to alleviate pain? Frequently, physicians seem hesitant to prescribe drugs due to the fear of addiction or other reasons. What is our attitude toward pain and its alleviation? (Rena T. Hirsh, Santa Barbara CA).

ANSWER: Jewish tradition is not ascetic and does not endorse self affliction through pain. The only exception is Yom Kippur along with some of the lesser fast days. On that day we are commanded to “afflict our souls,” but that does not entail real suffering, only fasting and abstinence from sexual intercourse. Even fasting is not necessary for those who are physically impaired. We feel no necessity to renounce this world and its blessings and so need not afflict ourselves in order to attain salvation in the next world. This is in vivid contrast to some forms of Christianity.

It is true that rabbinic tradition has interpreted the suffering of the people of Israel and of individuals, as either Divine punishment or as a test (Job; B B 5a; Shab 55a, etc). However, in none of the sources and many others has anyone been asked to seek suffering, rather we try to avoid it. During illness we may use every medical means available to avoid pain (Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 241.13 and commentaries).

There are enormous variations in the pain threshold of individuals. Many physicians refuse to consider this or do not appropriately deal with the entire issue of pain. Sometimes this is because specialists, who do not communicate with each other, are treating the patient; each is concerned with a specific organ or system and none is aware of the total effect on the patient. At other times, it is simply due to indifference and a lack of interest in the patient, possibly because the attending physician has never suffered any serious pain. There is certainly nothing within Jewish tradition which would restrain the treatment of pain. We would have a greater fear of continuous pain than addiction.

We must be equally concerned with pain of the terminally ill. There is a fine line of distinction between alleviating pain and prescribing a drug which may hasten death. When the pain is great the physician should alleviate the pain and not be overly concerned about the latter consequence, as death is certain in any case. (W. Jacob (ed) American Reform Response #79, etc).

There is nothing within Jewish tradition that would keep pain medication from being given when medically indicated. We would hope that the patient be made as comfortable as possible and that this will help recovery or make the last days of life easier.

August 1991

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

✕