[Avodah] a troubling halacha/Re being the bearer of bad news

[Chana Luntz]

RET writes:

> I am still waiting for a source (before KSA) that one shouldn't inform
> relatives of the death of a family member (except for kaddish)

Basically the source of the KSA is the Shulchan Aruch and Rema.

The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah siman 402 si'if 12) says:

One to whom a close relative has died (mi shemet lo met) one is not
obligated to tell him (aino chova) even if it is his father or his mother
and on this it is said U'motzei d'vara hu k'sil (Mishlei 10:18) and it is
permitted to invite him to an engagement or wedding feast and all types of
simcha since he doesn't know but anyway if he asks upon him he is not to lie
and say that he is alive as it says, from a matter of sheker keep far away.

The Rema then adds:

In any event with male children we are accustomed to make it known in order
that they should say kaddish but with daughters it is not the minhag at all
[ain minhag klal] to make it known.

The source for the Shulchan Aruch appears to be from the Mordechai - as can
be seen from the Beis Yosef on siman 402 s'v "v'katav od hamodechai" where
he quotes this halacha virtually verbatim from the Mordechai (if you skip
the bit about being able to invite the wedding feast, which apparently the
Mordechai brings as a proof from the Haigos Mamonios and Rashi, because of
course if one was obligated to tell, then how could one invite to a wedding
feast).

However I note that the Be'er Hagolah at the side of the Shulchan Aruch
appears to believe the Shulchan Aruch's halacha is derived from the story of
Rav and Rav Chiya found at Moed Katan 20a and Pesachim 4a - where Rav Chiya
asked Rav whether his father was alive and Rav avoided the question by
saying, you should ask whether my mother is alive, and when he asked is his
mother alive, he replied, you should ask whether my father is alive.  From
this Rav Chiya deduced that they were both dead and since he was a close
relative, proceeded to remove his shoes.

Now if one had the obligation to tell somebody, they why did these deaths
only come out when Rav Chiya asked a question, and why was Rav so evasive
about his answer (something that the gemora in Pesachim praises as a form of
careful speech). Hence, one must not have an obligation to tell.

And then RBW writes: 

> I am still somewhat confused about this whole issue. Why not tell the
> relative? Put aside the cases where the relative is sick or old or
> pregnant.
> 
> Someone wrote me off line that the gemara indicates that one should not be
> the bearer of bad news. What gemara is this? Is being the bearer of bad
> news "bad" for that person?

The gemora that they are presumably thinking about is Pesachim 3b-4a (of
which this story of Rav and Rav Chiya is only a part).   This recounts
several cases in which people tell over bad news ambiguously or with some
kind of restraint, and this is deemed appropriate.  The source of the
Mordechai's use of the pasuk in Mishlei later quoted by the Shulchan Aruch
can be found here too.  The case in question is two cases before that of Rav
and Rav Chiya, on daf 3b - where a certain Rav Yehoshua was sent to find out
about the welfare of Rav Kahana, and discovered that he had died (and of
course tore kriah) but then he put the torn part on his back and came back
crying, and when he was then asked whether Rav Kahana had died, he answered
"I did not say anything, umotzei d'vara hu k'sil"

Note that Rashi says that he hid the kriah because he did not want them to
find out suddenly (maher) that Rav Kahana had died v'yetzei levavchem" .  

So it is not totally clear from all of this that it is bad for a person to
be the bearer of bad news, but rather what might be derived is that if one
does not do it carefully one can be considered a fool (which I think we can
all see - if you tell somebody some shocking news too suddenly, then you
could cause them serious harm).

In all of the cases actually mentioned by the gemora, the person in question
was able to work out what the situation was by the evasive language, it was
just not done explicitly in a way that was more likely to cause shock.


> Ben

And then RET further writes:

> Simply not telling bad news should not override the mitzvah of vehavta
> le-reacha kamocha where you know you are distressing the person
> by withholding the information

Well I confess that I think that is right, and that what the sources are
stressing, at least pre the Rema, is that one is not obligated to tell if
one thinks it will be damaging - if we did not know this, surely we would
think we were obligated to tell over news of a relative's death, because
otherwise we are depriving people of the performance of the mitzvos of
aveilus if we don't tell them.  So without this explicit statement, we might
well think that, regardless of whether the telling is indeed appropriate or
necessary (or might cause undue pain) we are obligated to tell.

If you understand the halacha in the Shulchan Aruch this way then the Rema
is in fact coming to say, but in the case of male children, even if you
think that in many ways the child might be better off not knowing, the
minhag is still to tell them, so they can say kaddish (remember that kaddish
is regarded as an obligation which assists the meis, especially when said by
a son, so there is reason to say that even if it is not so good for the
son's mental welfare to be told, he must still be told for the good of the
meis).  Such a calculation would not however apply to daughters or other
close relatives.

However, you can also with not too great a difficulty understand the Rema
the way that Rav Zilberstein is clearly doing it, particularly given the
word "klal" which is that the idea that it is not the custom ever to tell
daughters (or other relatives who are not male sons), whether or not you
judge it good for their mental welfare.

I tend to agree with you however.  I don't think that the Rema is talking
about the situation where it would distress the person by withholding the
information, but to the contrary, I think he is discussing the situation
where somebody who is far away and not able to do anything constructive in
terms of comforting the other avelim or mourning themselves (say a daughter
married with a family many miles away, with a full life and obligations vis
a vis that family) who would suddenly find themselves subject to the really
quite onerous mourning halachas (she couldn't go to any of the simchas in
the village in which she has now made her life etc etc) without any of the
supports that mourning as part of a mourning community provide.  It is not
as though she could, with her family responsibilities, travel to her
parent's home anyway (because after all, if she was able to be in any kind
of reasonable contact she would unquestionably know).  

But then I am not a posek.

> Eli Turkel

Shabbat Shalom

Chana