[Avodah] a troubling halacha

[Chana Luntz]

RDS writes:
> Why don't we simply assume that it has nothing to do with the 
> Avel, but rather with the bearer of the news.
> 
> Shlomo Hamelech asserted: Being the harbinger of bad news is 
> foolish. Why would anybody want to be the town fool?

It is not so clear to me that when Shlomo HaMelech wrote the pasuk in Mishle
U'motzei d'vara hu k'sil (Mishlei 10:18) he was actually referring to this
case.  The context of the pasuk would rather seem to indicate that it is
talking about untruthful speech, and indeed all the  meforshim, including
Rashi, use the word "laz" to explain d'vara.

And in fact the Ramban on Bamidbar 13:32-33 distinguishes between using the
language "motzei d'vara" which, after quoting this Mishle he says relates to
something sheker (as in, the meraglim where it uses this term) and "mevi
dvara" which refers to a matter which is emet, which is what is used vis a
vis Yosef and his brothers, and for which the Torah then has to add the word
"ra", as such a matter could be either  bad or good.

Now Rashi on 14:36 does seem to say differently where he suggests that
"hotzei d'vara" is an expression of "chinuch d'varim" in which one is
teaching a person how to speak, and he states that this can be used both for
bad and good.  However the Ramban commenting on this in 14:37 specifically
disagrees - with one of the proof texts that he brings being this pasuk from
Mishlei.

So given that background, the use of this posek in both the gemora in
Pesachim 3b and the Mordechai/Shulchan Aruch is rather suprising.

Perhaps the gemora itself is not so surprising.  The topic of that gemora is
speaking in ways that are either not appropriate (using certain language
rather than alternative more tzniusdik language to describe a woman on a
horse for example) or not so preferable (using the term tameh rather than
aino tahor for example).  But in each case not only the incorrect but the
correct way of speaking is brought by the gemora and that is generally by
the use of euphemisms or alternative methods to convey the same message, not
a failure to convey the message at all.  In that context, the use of the
pasuk from Mishlei to convey the message that in fact Rav Kahana had died
would fit within that category, and would not necessarily imply more.

The only person I could find commentating, in my quick look through my
library on this (aside from what we have discussed) is the Meiri who says:
Roi l'adam gum ken l'zahir shelo yiye m'zuman lbshura shel parunios k'gon
misa ladam gadol u'keyetzei b'zeh v'im shoalin oso b'kach rashai l'gamgem
b'dvarim ad sheyavin hainyan mitoch d'varav v'lo sheamruhu l'hedi"a

Note that thr Meiri appears to believe that this applies to the general
telling in relation to an adam gadol and not specifically in relation to
telling a relative about somebody who may not fall within that category.  Of
course, if we held like this, presumably those banner headlines all over our
newspapers and pashkvils saying "Baruch Dayan Emet" every time an adam gadol
passes away would be considered assur, whereas it is not so clear that
telling a karov is.  I think that is really the answer to the question you
pose above "Why don't we simply assume that it has nothing to do with the
Avel, but rather with the bearer of the news" - because if it was, it would
apply beyond the Avel, and apply more in the case of an adam gadol whose
passing affects all of klal yisroel than it does to yankel shmerel.  But in
practice we don't seem to posken like that, and we do put up big banners and
encourage people to go to levayas etc etc.  The only place we seem to apply
it l'halacha is vis a vis an avel, and that would seem to suggest it is avel
specific.

>
> - Danny

Shavuah tov

Chana