3

What is the consensus today regarding dybbuks, demons and possession? Do we attribute these things to mental illness or do we acknowledge their existence?

mevaqesh
  • 35,599
  • 2
  • 98
  • 176
Ephraim
  • 289
  • 1
  • 4
  • 1
    What makes you think there is consensus today? – Double AA Feb 17 '16 at 21:24
  • 1
    There is definitely not a consensus today. It's more like a dichotomy, with no middle ground. But the work "dybbuk" is a very recent term, so it's hard to acknowledge the "existence" of a recent term without discussing whether it refers to an older more original term, or if it's a new category altogether. – Aaron Feb 17 '16 at 21:26
  • observation. The phenomenologic dibbuk, is not particularly a jewish Culture-Bound Syndrome. The samd thing exist in many cultures, The ethnopsychiatry knows this. Schizophrenia or Dissociative States are the main diagnostics that the Psychiatric Diagnostic Phenomenologic can offer. The Dibbuk is admitted in a world where indifferently jews and not jews understand psychic life events and the psychiatric phenomenology through a kind of possession. Up to day this attitude to regard psychiatric illness as Dibbuk when the patient is not issued from a such cultural world is absurd. – kouty Feb 18 '16 at 15:11
  • Related: http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/55210/what-is-rambams-opinion-on-demons/57487#57487. Possible dupe of: http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/729/sheidim-are-they-fact-or-fiction/57115#57115 – mevaqesh Feb 19 '16 at 05:11
  • related http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/45048/does-sorcery-black-magic-exist-today/45058#45058 – ray Feb 22 '16 at 06:09

2 Answers2

2

In practice nowadays in Israel, Gedoley Hador encourage people to consult a psychiatrist. In most cases, antipsychotic treatments are successful.

According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, almost in all cases, the patients fulfill criteria of schizophrenia. Below, I will paste some sentences from the DSM 5, the last version. One of the key features that define the psychotic disorders is delusions.

Delusions may be called bizarre or non-bizarre. One of the critera which characterizes a delusion as bizarre is: clearly implausible or not understandable to same-culture peers and does not derive from ordinary life experience.

Another key feature is hallucinations. They are perception-like experiences that occur without an external stimulus. Auditory hallucinations are the most common in schizophrenia and related disorders. Auditory hallucinations are usually experienced as voices, whether familiar or unfamiliar, that are perceived as distinct from the individual's own thoughts.

Culture-Related Diagnostic Issues: In some cultures, visual or auditory hallucinations with religious content (e.g., hearing G_d's voice) are a normal part of the religious experience. (Among Orthodox Jews this is not the case.)

Cultural Formulation.

Culture-Bound Syndromes. (from Synopsis of Psychiatry. Kaplan & Zadock, eleventh edition). The dichotomy between syndromes that are "culture-free", emerging from Euro-American and European societies, and those that are "culture-bound" emerging from everywhere else, is of course patently false.

Possession Syndrome is described in almost all countries around the world.

Nowadays, almost all Orthodox Jews are wholly congruent with the Euro-American and European cultures. The dibbuk is not culture-bound at all. The Rabbis and pseudo-rabbis that practice exorcism with big rewards for their magic services are either impostors or odd people. Almost always, the patients will come to psychiatrists.

In ancient times and other cultures, possession syndrome was perhaps another phenomenon. Ethno-psychiatry is very interesting. We can see many case reports in Africa before 40-50 years ago. In Israel, Arab villages and Ethiopian migrants provide possession syndromes that are culture-bound.

Clifford Durousseau
  • 1,804
  • 10
  • 26
kouty
  • 22,732
  • 3
  • 29
  • 58
1

Rabbi Elchonon Wasserman, a close talmid of the Chafetz Chaim, supposedly was involved with a dybuk. The Artscroll biography of him says he would repeat the story every Purim. See here.

This is also recorded in the book Lev Eliyahu compiled by Rabbi Shalom Shwadron (Sefer Bereishis, pp. 28-31). See here for a translation.

Clifford Durousseau
  • 1,804
  • 10
  • 26
ray
  • 21,206
  • 2
  • 45
  • 103
  • How does this answer the question? – mevaqesh Feb 19 '16 at 05:08
  • 1
    @mevaqesh Rabbi Wasserman acknowledges their existence along with Rabbi Elyah Lopian, both great leaders. and we find no big gedolim arguing with them on this – ray Feb 19 '16 at 05:58
  • 1
    Accepting the accuracy of the story, R. Wasserman was born over 130 years ago. He lived in Lithuania and Latvia; hardy a bastion of intellectual development, even for that century. That hardly seems to prove the "consensus today" – mevaqesh Feb 19 '16 at 06:16
  • 1
    R. Lopian was also born 130 years ago in Poland. He seems to provide little evidence of what "we attribute these things to". – mevaqesh Feb 19 '16 at 06:17
  • 1
    re " we find no big gedolim": This comment combines two fallacies:the true Scotsman fallacy, and argument from ignorance. – mevaqesh Feb 19 '16 at 06:21
  • @mevaqesh chafetz chaim era and his talmidim is not good enough? – ray Feb 19 '16 at 12:08
  • There is nothing in the OP's wording that makes me think that he wants the beliefs of the Chafets Chaim (born over 175 years ago). The whole question is hinged on the conflict between the revolutions of modern science that have obviated the need for mystical explanations, and belief in ancient superstitions. The Chafets Chaim and his associates lived in a culture (rural 19th century eastern Europre) that was superstitious and did believe in these forces anyway. Accordingly, their view is if little relevance to someone today in the 21st century in a society that has progressed past this. – mevaqesh Feb 19 '16 at 15:25
  • @mevaqesh if i hear u correctly, you believe all supernatural phenomena has been disproved by modern science. correct? the reason being we cannot study it using the methods of science – ray Feb 20 '16 at 21:36
  • I thought that my comments were clear, but I will reiterate. I said nothing about whether or not modern science has disproven the supernatural. My main point was that in quoting sources from a century and more ago you seemed to fail the criteria implied by the OP. I suggested further, that besides for the implication of the OP's words, it seemed probable that the OP was not interested in such quaint views. The OP's question implies that the existence of these creatures is a matter of doubt. Quoting sources for whom the existence of demons was a matter of fact would then have little bearing – mevaqesh Feb 22 '16 at 05:03
  • Regarding science disproving the demons, this is impossible. It is also impossible for science to disprove that the whole universe came into existence 2 seconds ago full of people with overlapping memories of the past. What science does is give us the tool; Occam's razor to determine likelier and unlikelier explanations, rendering the unlikely ones practically ignorable. – mevaqesh Feb 22 '16 at 05:13
  • 1
    This methodology would preclude the existence of demons, flying purple people eaters, Crumple-Horned Snorckacks, and an infinite amount of other creatures that could exist. To reiterate, your answer is not wrong since it promotes an unscientific belief; it is flawed since it does not seem to address the question of the OP. – mevaqesh Feb 22 '16 at 05:13
  • 1
    @mevaqesh the OP asked for consensus from jewish sources not consensus from science. and what i brought is not an opinion of what "might be" but an observed fact at least to those who reported it – ray Feb 22 '16 at 06:06
  • 1
    You seem to be ignoring everything I have written. I give up repeating the same objections only to have you defend yourself against other (irrelevant claims). The irrelevance of the answer, to speak nothing of its scientific shortcomings, have been amply documented. Unless there is some substantial change to this answer, I see little point in continuing respond. – mevaqesh Feb 23 '16 at 01:32
  • @mevaqesh not defending anything. you are making irrelevant points – ray Feb 23 '16 at 05:59
  • 1
    R' Shlomo Fisher Shlita reported that his mechuton, the late R' Hirsh Zaks, grandson of the Chafetz-Chaim, quashed the story. R' David Mostofsky divulged - that R' Mendel Zaks, scoffed at it. R' Benzion Sobel disclosed , that R' Rephael Wallerstein, "someone very close to R' Mendel Zaks", had informed him that R' Mendel denied the entire story. The Chafetz-Chaim's oldest son, R' Aryeh-Laib Poupko, reprinted in his ככח"ח an article written a month after his father's passing in the newspaper הדרך under the pseudonym מחר הלוי by someone claiming to have been "close to the Chafetz- Chaim's house" – mevaqesh Mar 16 '16 at 22:40
  • 1
    Inter alia, the article tells the following: "The Chafetz-Chaim's outlook was clearly rational without mystical fogginess and 'climbing on ladders, without delusions, without superstitions. They tell how aggrieved and broken Jews once brought him some young girl who crowed like a cock and uttered odd sounds. 'Our holy teacher,' the Jews cried bitterly and supplicated him, 'save us! A dibbuk has entered the girl - may the Merciful One spare us - and you, our master, must expel it from within her.' The Chafetz-Chaim commiserated with them, comforted them, spoke kindly to their heart: – mevaqesh Mar 16 '16 at 22:42
  • 1
    'It is not a dibbuk,' he said. 'It is a kind of sickness. Go to the doctor - he will be the Holy One's messenger and heal her...'" It is clear from the context, that מחר הלוי discounted all stories of the occult pertaining to the Chafetz- Chaim, and from R' Poupko's approbation it is clear that he agreed with 'מחר הלוי R' Shlomo Wolbe reported that R' Yeruham Levovitz, the Mashgiach of Mir, who played a part in the dibbuk story, held that it was no dibbuk that entered the young girl in question; rather, she was suffering from mental illness. – mevaqesh Mar 16 '16 at 22:44
  • 1
    R' Yoseph-Shlomo Kahanneman, the Ponivezher Rav, who was another of the participants in the dialogue with the girl ", told his protégé in London, R' Yaakov Levison, that the fact that she - "a daughter of R' Nahum Strelcer from the small, Polish hamlet of Fascoli" - was using foul language while in her state of seizure in- dictated that she was not "possessed" by a spiritual creature. (The Ponivezher Rav added that it seems possible for a spirit to speak words of heresy and blasphemy, matters of a philosophical nature, but not [obscenities].) – mevaqesh Mar 16 '16 at 22:45
  • 1
    R' Yoseph-Shlomo maintained that the Chafetz-Chaim had smiled approvingly when this opinion was expressed, leaving the impression that the master, too, did not believe a dibbuk had overtaken the young woman. R' Kahanneman believed that the reason the Chafetz-Chaim did not declare openly that the young woman had no dibbuk but a mental condition was so that the stigma of insanity not mar the good reputation of the young lady and of the entire Strelcer family. according to R' Noson Shulman, R' Naphtali Trop had denied the dibbuk story - though his name had been linked to the tale. – mevaqesh Mar 16 '16 at 22:46
  • Oh and note the reaction of R. Simcha Wasserman who refused to even talk about the incident "R. Simcha demurred. “Yiddishkeit is difficult enough for many people to accept without burdening them with stories about dybbuks.” Evidently he realized that the world has come a long way from the folk superstitions of the precious generation to the modern age. – mevaqesh Jun 29 '16 at 06:11
  • Whoa!!! How did you obtain so much inside information!? I'm not asking rhetorically, I am actually extremely eager to know how you went about to discover these things! Please divulge your secrets to me :) – AYAL TAAROG Jun 06 '23 at 22:07