Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 387

Sun, 16 Nov 2008

• 1. Re: a troubling halacha (Samuel Svarc)
• 2. pikuach nefesh (Rich, Joel)
• 3. a troubling halacha/Re being the bearer of bad news (Chana Luntz)
• 4. Re: a troubling halacha (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 5. Re: pikuach nefesh (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 6. Re: pikuach nefesh (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: a troubling halacha (Arie Folger)
• 8. Re: a troubling halacha (Arie Folger)
• 9. Re: pikuach nefesh (Rich, Joel)
• 10. Re: a troubling halacha (Richard Wolpoe)
• 11. Re: [Areivim] Story about kashrus on airplane (Mike Miller)
• 12. Chafetz Chaim's wife davening (menucha)

RET:
> 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)
> 
> 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

I just recently (after this discussion started on Avodah) heard a shuir on
107.9, the Lakewood radio station, where the maggid shuir was discussing the
halachos of relating troubling news. He spoke out that we tell the sons
about the death in order that they should say kaddish, and then threw in
that the minag today is to tell the daughters as well, basing this factoid
on the Chavos Yair. He gave no mareh makom so I can't pass any on.

KT,
MSS

 There was a  quote   in the New Jersey Jewish News   that his Rabbi
told  Rahm Emanuel  that it was permissible to take  a  conference call
on Rosh Hashanah about the bailout package because "I felt it was a case
of Pikuach Nefesh".  
 
Without commenting on the applicability in this case, are there thsuvot
that examine the boundaries of "indirect" pikuach nefesh for a tzibbur;
and the interplay with the level of issur?
 
 Kol Tuv, 
Joel Rich 
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081114/4eff8b60/attachment-0001.htm>

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

R' Micha Berger wrote:
> It still doesn't address RZS's citation of the Chazal
> (Bereishis Rabba, quoted by Rashi Ber' 37:35, "vayima'ein
> lehisnacheim". ... Yaaqov never got nechamah during
> Yoseif's absence, and had Yoseif actually been niftar,
> Yaaqov avinu's pain would have faded. ... I have a
> problem with this Chazal as it's not born out (IMHO as
> well as RET's testimony) by experience.

I have always felt that it is not only you and RET and I who have this
problem with this Chazal. Rather, I've suspected that many of Chazal feel
this way too, and that's why they go to great lengths to say that Yaakov in
fact DID know that Yosef was still alive.

> Perhaps the medrash is describing the difference
> between an MIA and someone who was buried; there is no
> "closure", no certainty. This requires reading "vesavur"
> (in "hachai vesavur shemeis") as being a lower level of
> confidence. Perhaps in contrast to the more expected
> "venechashav she-".

Interesting idea. I wonder if similar ideas appear anywhere in Hilchos
Aguna. IOW, where there is a great deal of evidence that the husband has
died, but there is no body and the wife feels this lack of closure, it
could make the difference between allowing her to remarry, or not allowing.
Or maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps those with more learning/practice in that sad
area might offer some ideas.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Click for free info on getting an MBA, $200K/ year potential.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc
/Ioyw6i3l7wXqiDjMVSLGII5tpFsNUGoAIRJ3vdEY4QENLRRbNUY5Oi/

Rich, Joel wrote:
>  There was a  quote   in the New Jersey Jewish News   that his Rabbi 
> told  Rahm Emanuel  that it was permissible to take  a  conference 
> call on Rosh Hashanah about the bailout package because "I felt it was 
> a case of Pikuach Nefesh".  
>  
> Without commenting on the applicability in this case, are there 
> thsuvot that examine the boundaries of "indirect" pikuach nefesh for a 
> tzibbur; and the interplay with the level of issur?
Pikuach nefesh - means a threat to physical life. Will the person commit 
suicide or die from a stroke or fear? The major source is yoma 84b-85a
There is some extension to loss of spiritual life in O.C. 306
Some would assert that the loss of ability to keep mitzvos - such as 
total blindness or insanity might be called pikuach nefesh.

Perhaps the heter was given because of perceived danger to Emmanuel 
because he would not be handle the stress of not being involved and that 
this was life threatening to him.

Daniel Eidensohn
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: yadmoshe.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 103 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081114/9c66d38b/attachment-0001.vcf>

The thing is, I can easily accept that there might be a heter for his
having taken the call, based on "mefakchin al tzorchei tzibur beshabbos".
Talking on a phone which is already connected is probably not an issur
de'oraisa even on Shabbos, and on yomtov hav'oroh is muttar, so that's
not a problem, and if one can somehow turn this into a shvus-dishvus
then tzorchei tzibbur would be enough to justify it.

But invoking pikuach nefesh seems out of left field.

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
z...@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                                                  - Clarence Thomas

RAM wrote:
> So the last kaddish of the davening - after Aleinu - was said by such a
> son. When other tefilos were added (like Shir Shel Yom and such) an orphan
> would say kaddish after those too.

Just for the record: since you pain yourself to summarize the development of 
tefillah, I point out that the last qadish of teh Gemara is NOT the qadish 
after 'aleinu, as 'aleinu was originally only part of malkhiyot on RH. It is 
only in the 13th-14th centuries that 'aleinu became part of the daily 
liturgy.

Good Shabbos,
-- 
Arie Folger
http://ariefolger.wordpress.com
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

RET wrote:
> There is a rabbi in our shul who lost a son (about 20 year old) in a
> military raid. He says kaddish for his son for several years. Again
> while there is no halacha of saying kaddish beyond 30 days I don't see
> anything wrong with continuing.

Why 30 days? Qadish isn't a matter of aveilut, but is rather connected to the 
particular din the soul goes through during the period immediately following 
the onset of death, as well as when the soul is nifqedet.
-- 
Arie Folger
http://ariefolger.wordpress.com
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

The thing is, I can easily accept that there might be a heter for his
having taken the call, based on "mefakchin al tzorchei tzibur
beshabbos".
Talking on a phone which is already connected is probably not an issur
de'oraisa even on Shabbos, and on yomtov hav'oroh is muttar, so that's
not a problem, and if one can somehow turn this into a shvus-dishvus
then tzorchei tzibbur would be enough to justify it.

But invoking pikuach nefesh seems out of left field.

-- 
Zev Sero         

Actually I was thinking about karov lmalchut as a starting point.
KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:

>
> On the contrary, if you know you are distressing the person then I
> don't believe the KSA would have you withhold the information either.
> The whole point is *not* to distress the person, and is a *fulfilment*
> of veahavta; if in a particular case veahavta requires the opposite of
> what it usually does, then so be it.
>
> The same applies to kibbud av va'em -- sometimes it *requires* behaving
> to parents in a way that it would usually forbid, e.g. shouting at a
> parent to make them take their medicine or get up and take necessary
> exercise.  The rule that one must normally not behave so is a general
> rule, geared to the general situation.
>
>
> --
> Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
> z...@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
>                                                  - Clarence Thomas
>
> _______________________________________________
> Avodah mailing list
> Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
> http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
>


II have run across some Mussar Sefarim that advise against being a "bad
news" monger, which tangentially relates with being a Lashon Horo.  Zev is
likely correct in his reasoning above that spreading bad news can inflict
pain - just as LH does.

Now telling people about a levaya might be an exception to the above,
because in that case one is prompting beople to do a mitzva



RabbiRichWol...@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20081114/cad4c51a/attachment.htm>

[It was mentioned on Areivim that....]
> Washing in a bathroom ... is no good according to RMF (although others disagree).
- Hide quoted text -

L'chatchila or b'dieved?

Source please? (that's a question, not a challenge!)

-- Mike Miller
Ramat Bet Shemesh

I remember hearing that the Chafetz Chaim told his wife that when she 
was busy with child raising she did not have to daven as per his shita.  
Is this an urban legend or is there a source for this?
thanks,
menucha


------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 387
***************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."