The desire to protect friends and relatives often poses a major dilemma in the area of shidduchim (introductions for the purpose of marriage). People seek to ensure that their loved ones do not err by marrying spouses with objectionable personality traits or other severe flaws.1In truth, arranging any shidduch, even when neither side possesses any unusually severe flaws, always entails revealing information about others, as the matchmaker must always provide the man and woman with some information about their prospective dating partner’s background and personality. Thus, matchmaking in general requires sensitivity to the laws of lashon hara (negative speech). We have chosen, however, to limit our discussion to severe flaws, as divulging or concealing unusually major flaws can have particularly catastrophic results. The general topic of lashon hara in the context of shidduchim warrants its own essay. On the other hand, one must ensure that this noble goal does not lead to wrongfully damaging the reputations of prospective marriage partners. In this chapter, we explore when Halachah permits and even obligates someone to reveal a significant flaw, versus when one must remain silent.2For a summary of these laws, see Hanisu’in Kehilchatam (1:3:11-22).
One’s Own Flaws
Rabbeinu Yehudah Hachasid (Sefer Hachasidim 507, in some editions 1163) writes that one should not conceal flaws from a potential marriage partner, lest the couple live a miserable life together. In fact, Rav Moshe Feinstein writes that just as the Torah (Vayikra 25:14) forbids misrepresenting merchandise in order to deceive consumers (ona’at mamon),3The Gemara discusses the laws of ona’ah at length in the fourth chapter of Bava Metzia. Regarding the severity of the sin of ona’ah, see Mesilat Yesharim (Chapter 11). surely one may not conceal information in a manner that misleads a potential marriage partner.4Teshuvot Igrot Moshe (Even Ha’ezer 4:73:2). Also see Teshuvot Divrei Malkiel (3:90) and Kehilot Yaakov (Yevamot 38). Moreover, if someone mistakenly marries without knowing that his/her spouse has an extremely severe flaw at the time of the wedding, the marriage’s validity can be called into question.5The laws of kiddushei ta’ut (marriages contracted under false pretenses) are exceedingly complex, such that only a major halachic authority can rule on practical cases of kiddushei ta’ut. We summarize the main issues surrounding kiddushei ta’ut in our first volume (pp. 40-47). One need not reveal every minor flaw, however, but only those that will likely undermine the marriage’s happiness.6The distinction between major and minor defects applies to business, too. When I sought to sell a used automobile, Rav Hershel Schachter told me that I need not enumerate every flaw, but rather only highly significant defects. For a discussion of disclosing defects in advertising, see Rav Aaron Levine’s Economics and Jewish Law (pp. 87-91).
Illness
Rabbeinu Yehudah Hachasid obligates people to disclose their illnesses when “if the prospective mates knew of the illness, they would not consent to marry.”7Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe, E.H. 4:10) encourages confidentially testing young adults for Tay-Sachs disease when they reach marriageable age, so that young men and women who both carry the recessive gene for Tay-Sachs can avoid marrying each other. Rav Moshe Shternbuch (Teshuvot Vehanhagot 1:879) similarly requires the revelation of illnesses that might negatively impact the marriage, but not of illnesses that do not affect married life. Poskim discuss many individual cases in this area, because the precise medical facts of each disease must be analyzed in order to determine how it might impact married life. Rav Shternbuch thus urges presenting every practical situation to a poseik who will consult skilled doctors in order to obtain current information about the illness’s impact and determine accordingly whether to notify the prospective marriage partner. Although any practical question must be asked to a duly qualified Rav, we will present a few examples from the responsa literature in order to offer the reader a sense of how poskim handle these cases.
Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe, Even Ha’ezer 4:73:2) writes that one who suffers from Marfan’s syndrome8The Marfan syndrome is a heritable condition that affects the connective tissue. In the Marfan syndrome, the connective tissue is defective. Because connective tissue is found throughout the body, the Marfan syndrome can affect many body systems, including the skeleton, eyes, heart and blood vessels, nervous system, skin and lungs (Source: The National Marfan Foundation, www.marfan.org). must notify any potential mate of this flaw. Rav Shternbuch, after establishing that in theory one must reveal only illnesses that affect married life, encourages disclosing that one suffers from diseases that demand an unusual diet, such as diabetes or an ulcer, because their dietary restrictions can impact the couple’s life together. On the other hand, if someone once suffered from an emotional problem but has recovered fully enough that he no longer needs medication, then Rav Shternbuch does not obligate him to reveal this problem from his past, provided that medical experts are of the opinion that his problem will not return.
Rav Malkiel Tannenbaum (Teshuvot Divrei Malkiel 3:90) discusses whether a man must reveal to prospective brides that during childhood he suffered a severe injury to his male organs.9Also see Kehilot Yaakov, Yevamot 38, who indicates (but hesitates to rule in practice) that a certain man who lost his left testicle due to an illness need not inform a prospective wife of this fact, because doctors maintain that he will be able to procreate normally. Rav Yosef Shalom Eliashiv (cited in Nishmat Avraham vol. 5 p. 118), though, reportedly disagrees with the Kehilot Yaakov’s ruling, reasoning that many women might not want to marry this man, regardless of the doctors’ encouraging prognosis. Since this blemish might bother many women, Rav Eliashiv forbids its concealment. Rav Tannenbaum initially rules that he must divulge this concern, as many women do not want to marry a man who might never be able to reproduce. Rav Tannenbaum acknowledges that revealing this information will, regrettably, likely prevent the man (who was also destitute) from ever finding a wife. As a possible solution, Rav Tannenbaum suggests that a doctor examine the man carefully. Should the doctor conclude that the man will be able to reproduce, then he may conceal his defect.10At present, Rav Gidon Weitzman (personal communication) notes that this type of medical examination is difficult to implement in a halachically acceptable manner. It is important to seek proper medical and rabbinical guidance in such situations. Rav Tannenbaum reasons that most people trust doctors’ judgment on medical matters. Accordingly, the man may assume that most women would not object to marrying him once a doctor confirmed his ability to procreate, and therefore he need not inform them of his injury. In practice, though, Rav Tannenbaum adds that it is proper nonetheless to tell his future bride about his injury.
Someone asked Rav Shmuel Wosner (Teshuvot Sheivet Halevi 6:205) if a woman must inform her prospective husband that she has temporarily lost all her hair due to an illness. Although the hair was expected to grow back three or four years later, Rav Wosner leans towards requiring her to reveal her current ailment because most men would not consent to marry a woman while she is still bald.11Rav Wosner does not clarify whether the illness would have been severe enough to warrant notifying her dating partner even had her hair not fallen out. In practice, Rav Wosner recommends that she begin dating while wearing a natural-looking wig. Later, when a man has gotten to know her and developed a serious interest in her, she should explain to him that her natural hair will not return for a few years.
Questions of Lineage
The Gemara (Yevamot 45a) recounts that Rav Yehudah counseled the son of a Jewish woman and a non-Jewish man, who was experiencing difficulty in finding a wife, to move somewhere far away and conceal his lineage so that a woman from there would consent to marry him. The Gemara clearly assumes that many people hesitate to marry someone with a non-Jewish father (hence the motivation to conceal this fact), yet it implies that the child of a non-Jewish father may nevertheless conceal his lineage from a potential mate. Rav Meir Arik (Teshuvot Imrei Yosher 2:114:8) and Rav Eliezer Waldenberg (in comments printed in Nishmat Avraham, E.H. p. 252) assert that in practice one must reveal if one’s father is not Jewish.12Also see Teshuvot Minchat Yitzchak (7:107), who requires revealing that one was conceived during the nidah period, and Teshuvot Vehanhagot (1:733), who disagrees. Rav Yehoshua Neuwirth (cited in Nishmat Avraham vol. 5 p. 118) equates one whose father is not Jewish with one who was conceived during the nidah period, and he indicates that neither of them must share this part of his background with a prospective spouse. Also see footnote 25. They interpret the Gemara’s story about Rav Yehudah as an exceptional case,13Rav Arik suggests that the Gemara might permit moving only to a town where the man’s lineage will never be discovered, but otherwise he may not conceal it, lest it embarrass his wife when she later learns that her father-in-law is not Jewish. In addition, Rav Arik indicates that the man may marry in this new town by remaining silent about his lineage but may not explicitly lie about it. Rav Waldenberg claims that in the Gemara’s time authorities still debated the status of a child with a Jewish mother and a non-Jewish father, so Rav Yehudah issued an extraordinary ruling in order to publicize that such a child is Jewish. Under normal circumstances, however, one may not conceal one’s lineage. because they refuse to accept that the Halachah sanctions deliberately concealing information that would clearly affect whether a woman would marry this man. Rav Waldenberg also requires one to reveal if either parent is a convert.
The Steipler Rav (Kehilot Yaakov, Yevamot 38), though, seemingly disagrees with them and interprets the Gemara as normative.14The Steipler concludes this chapter by cautioning that he has not studied the topic sufficiently, so his words should not be viewed as a decisive ruling. Also see his comments elsewhere in Kehilot Yaakov (Likutim 2:23) and Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach’s defense of his position (cited in Nishmat Avraham vol. 5 pp. 117-118). He argues that although most people initially hesitate to marry someone with a non-Jewish father, they would not go so far as to seek a divorce were they to find out post facto that their spouse’s lineage possessed this blemish. The Steipler Rav suggests that deceiving people in a manner that they would forgive post facto only violates a rabbinic prohibition, so the Gemara apparently waives this prohibition for the sake of people who otherwise could not find mates.
Halachically Questionable Lineage
While the child of a non-Jewish father possesses merely undesirable lineage, sometimes one’s lineage poses a serious problem of actual illegitimacy. For example, the child of a woman’s second marriage faces concern for mamzeirut (illegitimacy) if his or her mother remarried without receiving a valid get (divorce document) from her first husband. Should the child indeed be a mamzeir, he or she may not marry anyone other than a fellow mamzeir or a convert. In many contemporary situations, though, poskim can permit the child to nevertheless marry because they determine that the mother’s first wedding did not meet halachic standards.15See our first volume (pp. 63-90) for a discussion of the halachic status of non-Orthodox marriages. As we repeatedly note in that discussion, one must make every effort to avoid such situations of possible mamzeirut by performing a proper get even when a civil court judge or Reform rabbi officiated at the wedding. In such situations, where one may marry only due to a lenient ruling of an eminent halachic authority, Rav Malkiel Tannenbaum (Teshuvot Divrei Malkiel 3:90) and Rav Eliezer Waldenberg (Teshuvot Tzitz Eliezer 7:48:5:15-17) require divulging the full background to any prospective mate. Since questions of mamzeirut often depend on disputed points in Halachah, a prospective spouse could reasonably hesitate to rely upon the same view as the poseik who ruled leniently in a particular case. Hence, one may not conceal such issues from a prospective mate.16See, however, the Steipler Rav’s aforementioned discussion of the Gemara in Yevamot. The Steipler Rav addresses a case involving a man who was permitted by prominent poskim to marry despite concern that he was a petzu’a daka (one with crushed testicles; see Devarim 23:2). The Steipler Rav focuses his discussion on whether the man must tell dating partners that this injury might affect his reproductive capabilities. Interestingly, though, he does not mention any obligation to tell the prospective bride that he could marry her only due to a lenient ruling (that he is not a petzu’a daka), perhaps implicitly disagreeing with the Divrei Malkiel and Tzitz Eliezer.
Similarly, Rav Waldenberg notes that women sometimes receive permission from a prominent rabbi to temporarily employ contraceptives in order to protect their health, but this area has generated much debate among poskim.17For an overview of halachot regarding contraception, see Rav Hershel Schachter’s essay in The Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society (4:5-32). Consequently, Rav Waldenberg claims that a woman must warn her prospective groom if a particular halachic authority permitted her to employ contraceptives at the start of her marriage, in case the man feels uncomfortable entering a marriage where he will need to follow this rabbi’s lenient ruling.
Lost Virginity
Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe, Orach Chaim 4:118) writes that a woman must reveal to any prospective husband that she has lost her virginity. Rav Yitzchak Yaakov Weisz (Teshuvot Minchat Yitzchak 3:116) also adopts this view,18Dayan Weisz importantly notes, however, that not every woman who believes herself to no longer be a virgin has actually engaged in behavior that alters her status according to the Halachah’s technical definition of virginity. When presenting a practical case to a Rav, he must thus be informed of precisely why the woman believes that she has lost her virginity. explaining that virgins and non-virgins are entitled to different sums of money in their ketubot (marriage contract), so a woman who conceals her past misdeeds thus tricks her groom into writing her a virgin’s ketubah.19Under normal circumstances, a virgin receives 200 zuzim and a non-virgin receives 100 zuzim. (See B’ikvei Hatzon pp. 268-269, Teshuvot Tzitz Eliezer 22:81, and Teshuvot Beit Avi 3:137 for contemporary calculations of this value.) Rav Moshe and Dayan Weisz both discuss the groom’s ability to write a virgin’s ketubah for his non-virgin bride in order to spare her from humiliation (also see Ketubah Kehilchatah pp. 112-113). I have heard from Rav Mordechai Willig, though, that he does not obligate men or women who grew up in non-observant homes to reveal their past sexual indiscretions to prospective mates. Rav Willig reasons that nowadays the general society unfortunately does not expect people to remain abstinent until marriage. Therefore, anyone who dates someone from a non-observant home has no right to assume that his or her dating partner is a virgin.
Revealing the Flaws of Others – Concern for Lashon Hara
Until now, we have addressed an individual’s own obligation to divulge personal information to his or her prospective mate. This sensitive topic becomes even more complex when others must decide whether to reveal another person’s flaw to his or her potential mate. An outsider must weigh the welfare of the unsuspecting dating partner against the sin of lashon hara (harmful speech).
The Rambam (Hilchot De’ot 7:1-6), outlines three general categories of prohibited speech: rechilut (telling stories about another even if they are true and contain nothing negative), lashon hara (spreading true negative facts about others), and motzi shem ra (spreading false negative information). In order to emphasize the severity of gossiping about others, he writes, “It is a severe sin and causes the destruction of many Jewish lives.” He proceeds to cite a passage from the Gemara in Arachin (16b) that equates one who speaks lashon hara with one who rejects the existence of God. The Gemara further compares lashon hara to murder, adultery, and idolatry combined.
Elsewhere, the Gemara indicates just how restrictive the prohibition of lashon hara can be (Yoma 4b). It rules that if someone shares information with a friend, the friend may not repeat it without receiving express permission to do so. As a source for this principle, the Gemara refers to the manner in which God spoke to Moshe in the opening verse of Vayikra, “Hashem spoke to [Moshe] from the Tent of Meeting to say (leimor)20The word leimor could also be translated as “saying,” but here the Gemara interprets it as “to say.” [to the children of Israel].” We see that God explicitly authorized Moshe to repeat what He had told him, implying that, absent this authorization, Moshe would have been forbidden to tell the nation what he heard from Hashem.21We have followed the Maharsha’s explanation of this derivation (Yoma 4b s.v. Shehu). Also see Rashi (Yoma 4b s.v. Shehu), who offers a different explanation. For a summary of the need for permission to repeat what one heard from another person, see Rav Michael Taubes’s The Practical Torah (pp. 212-213).
Moreover, the Gemara (Sanhedrin 31a) teaches that a judge who informs a litigant that he voted against the majority opinion when a beit din issues a split decision violates the prohibition of rechilut. The Gemara adds that Rabbi Ami once expelled a student from the beit midrash (religious study hall) for revealing a secret twenty-two years after it occurred.
Unfairly Harming a Shidduch
In some cases, revealing a flaw to someone’s prospective spouse or parents-in-law clearly constitutes lashon hara. Dayan Weisz (Teshuvot Minchat Yitzchak 6:139) forbids someone from telling his friend that a prospective groom for the friend’s daughter committed a grave sin in his youth. Dayan Weisz explains that, as far as was known, the young man had never repeated his sin and instead devoted his time to Torah study, so his past sin did not reflect traits or habits that remained with him and might negatively impact his marriage.22Dayan Weisz restricts his ruling to a situation of a one-time sin , which has not affected the groom’s basic character. In the same responsum, he also discusses whether to reveal that a prospective groom repeatedly sinned if the groom has since repented, as well as what to do when the friend does not know if the groom has repented.
Certainly, one may not exaggerate minor flaws in a manner that unnecessarily harms a shidduch. The Chafetz Chaim (in a section added to Hilchot Isurei Rechilut 9) decries the fact that people often tell a young woman’s family about her prospective groom’s personality in a manner that depicts him in an unfairly negative light. Specifically, the Chafetz Chaim comments that people routinely describe young men as simpletons or fools simply because they lack the sharpness to outsmart sly individuals. Such a portrayal sometimes causes a young woman’s family to reject a particular candidate even though his “foolishness” reflects admirable honesty, and he might in fact possess other intellectual gifts. Those who talk about such a person as a fool thus focus on an extremely minor shortcoming, which should not affect the shidduch, and exaggerate it to the point where it prevents a potentially wonderful husband from finding a wife.
“Do Not Stand Idly By”
Despite the severity of speaking lashon hara, at times one is permitted or even obligated to reveal others’ flaws. The Rambam (Hilchot Rotzeiach 1:14) writes:
Whoever can save another individual [from an assailant] and fails to do so violates the Torah’s prohibition, “Do not stand idly by while your brother’s blood is being shed” (“Lo ta’amod al dam rei’echa;” Vayikra 19:16). Similarly, if one sees someone drowning in the sea or sees that robbers are attacking him or a wild animal is pouncing on him, and one can save him... but fails to do so... one violates the prohibition of lo ta’amod al dam rei’echa.
The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 426:1) cites this passage from the Rambam almost verbatim. Consequently, as we shall discuss, one must balance the prohibitions of rechilut and standing by idly, by not revealing insignificant flaws while also not remaining silent about major flaws. The Netziv (Ha’ameik Davar, Vayikra 19:16) explains that God placed the prohibitions of rechilut and standing by idly in the same verse in order to clarify when one should not speak rechilut. Their juxtaposition indicates that despite the prohibition to gossip, one nevertheless may not remain silent about information that can save another person from danger.23This insight is also attributed to the Netziv’s grandfather-in-law, Rav Chaim of Volozhin (cited in Teshuvot Vehanhagot 1:879).
The Chafetz Chaim’s Guidelines for Shidduchim
In accordance with the above passages from the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch, the Chafetz Chaim (ibid.) rules that one must reveal a serious flaw to the flawed individual’s prospective spouse. However, he cautions that one must first determine that the flaw in question warrants revelation (ibid., Be’er Mayim Chaim 8). In a number of places, the Chafetz Chaim lists several criteria for judging whether one may divulge information.24See Hilchot Isurei Rechilut 9 and Hilchot Lashon Hara 10:2. Rav Zelig Pliskin (Guard Your Tongue Chapter 10) presents an English summary of these criteria as they apply to shidduchim. Based on his criteria, one should examine six points before revealing any questionable information:
1) Is one positive that the information is completely true?
2) Is the flaw so significant that the parties involved must hear about it?
3) Does one intend to reveal the information purely to help those who must hear about it, or do malicious or vengeful desires taint one’s motivation?
4) Will the information likely affect those who hear it? If they will most probably ignore the news anyway, then one may not reveal it.
5) Is one presenting the information accurately? One may not exaggerate the information at all.
6) Does any alternative exist to achieve the desired goal without revealing the information?
Examples of Gray Areas
Due to the distinction between divulging one’s own personal information and divulging information about others, many poskim, when facing several of the same cases that we discussed earlier in the context of revealing one’s own flaws, issued far more restrictive rulings regarding what others may reveal. For example, we have already mentioned that Dayan Weisz requires a woman to reveal if she has lost her virginity, yet he rules that friends whom she told of her misdeed should not divulge it to her groom themselves.
Similarly, we have already noted that Rav Moshe Shternbuch requires revealing certain illnesses to one’s prospective spouse. Within those cases, however, he distinguishes between situations where only the bride and groom must reveal their illness and situations where an illness is so severe that anyone who knows of it must inform the affected person’s dating partner. In certain situations, Rav Shternbuch does not require others to contact the dating partner themselves, but he permits them to answer an inquiry from the dating partner honestly.
We have already cited Rav Meir Arik and Rav Eliezer Waldenberg’s view that one may not conceal one’s blemished lineage. We have also mentioned Rav Malkiel Tannenbaum and Rav Waldenberg’s view that one must inform any potential spouse if one may marry only due to the lenient ruling of a major halachic authority. A rabbi asked Rav Yaakov Breisch (Teshuvot Chelkat Ya’akov 3:6-7) about a young woman whose father was unknown, thus presenting both of these concerns. The father might not have been Jewish, blemishing her lineage. Alternatively, he may have been Jewish, in which case the woman might be a mamzeret.
After examining the precise details of her background and determining that she is not a mamzeret, Rav Breisch notes that nevertheless the woman’s lineage bears three blemishes: her father might not be Jewish, she was born out of wedlock, and her mother conceived her as a nidah (during the period of her menstrual cycle when she was prohibited to have relations).25The Shulchan Aruch (E.H. 4:13) alludes to the stigma against someone who was conceived during the nidah period. See Teshuvot Igrot Moshe (E.H. 4:14) and Rav Shimon Eider’s Halachos of Nidah (vol. 1 p. 3 note 15) for the position of many contemporary poskim that one should not refrain from marrying someone with fine character traits simply because he or she was conceived during the nidah period. Also see Kehilot Yaakov (Likutim 2:23), Teshuvot Minchat Yitzchak (7:107), Teshuvot Vehanhagot (1:732-733 and 2:627), Teshuvot Sheivet Halevi (4:162), and Rav Yehoshua Neuwirth (cited in Nishmat Avraham vol. 5 p. 118). Although these defects do not prohibit her from marrying a Jew, they could dissuade men in many traditional Jewish communities from marrying her.26Regarding whether it is proper to reject a prospective spouse due to defects in his or her lineage, Rav Breisch cites Rav Aharon Walkin’s vehement opposition to marrying the children of radical Reform Jews (Teshuvot Zekan Aharon 1:65). Rav Walkin bases his position on several classical sources that emphasize the value of unblemished lineage. However, Rav Breisch comments that in his time (1963, thirty-three years after Rav Walkin’s responsum) many Reform children developed into observant Jews, “And what should these girls do? Should we send them back to the Reform, and prevent them from being ‘under the wings of the Shechinah (Divine Presence)’ [by observing] Torah and mitzvot?” Accordingly, while Rav Breisch acknowledges that traditional sources do promote seeking spouses with unblemished lineage, he nonetheless argues against openly educating people to follow these sources in the present reality (also see the previous footnote). Rav Breisch concludes that the rabbi may not explicitly lie to prospective spouses about such blemishes,27Rav Meir Arik (Teshuvot Imrei Yosher 2:114:8) explicitly prohibits deceiving a prospective husband in a similar situation. but he may tell them that her lineage bears no stigmas that would render her illegitimate, without adding that it does have several more minor blemishes.
When One Must Reveal Others’ Flaws
Of course, some defects are so severe that even an outsider must divulge them to the affected person’s dating partner, even if the partner does not inquire about them. For example, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (cited in Nishmat Avraham vol. 4 p. 182) ruled in 1989 that a doctor must inform someone if his or her spouse has been diagnosed with AIDS. Dr. Avraham S. Avraham presented Rav Shlomo Zalman with the medical facts of that time, according to which a 66% chance existed that that the spouse would get infected within five years, and a 100% chance existed that the disease would eventually kill whomever it infected. Rav Shlomo Zalman thus concluded that informing someone that his or her spouse has AIDS was essential for saving that person’s life from certain danger.
In another tragic example, an observant doctor asked Rav Yaakov Breisch whether he should inform a young woman that her groom, a twenty-year-old man, was suffering from cancer and most likely would not live more than a year or two. Rav Breisch (Teshuvot Chelkat Ya’akov 3:136) ruled that the doctor must inform the bride of her groom’s illness, adding that failure to inform her would violate both lo ta’amod al dam rei’echa and placing an obstacle in front of a blind person (see Vayikra 19:14).28It must be noted that revealing this information might potentially harm or ruin a doctor’s career. Indeed, Alan Blumenfeld, Esq., of Brooklyn, NY has informed me that a doctor could face a lawsuit for revealing confidential medical information. Accordingly, a doctor’s obligation to inform the prospective spouse must be weighed against his need to earn a livelihood. For discussion of how a doctor should act in situations where revealing information might jeopardize his own career, see Nishmat Avraham, Choshen Mishpat 426:1 (vol. 5 p. 152) and Teshuvot Vehanhagot (1:869). Also see Nishmat Avraham (4:96-98), where Rav Eliezer Waldenberg, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, and Rav Yosef Shalom Eliashiv all rule that a doctor may honor a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) order that violates Halachah, if disobeying the order would cost the doctor his license. Of course, if practical situations arise, a doctor should first clarify all legal and financial ramifications of revealing the information and then present this data to a competent halachic authority.
In yet another unfortunate case, an observant doctor asked Rav Eliezer Waldenberg whether he must inform a young man that his fiancee, a patient of the doctor, lacked natural reproductive organs and would thus never conceive a child. Rav Waldenberg (Teshuvot Tzitz Eliezer 16:4) responded that the doctor must convey this information to the groom.29Rav Waldenberg adds that no distinction exists regarding this flaw between the two genders. Hence, if a doctor knows that one of his male patients cannot reproduce, then he must notify the bride accordingly. Although all doctors take the Hippocratic Oath, thereby swearing to never reveal confidential information about their patients, Rav Waldenberg insists that this oath cannot override Halachah.30Rav Waldenberg advises that the doctor convene three people for hatarat nedarim (annulment of vows), lest he violate the prohibition of swearing falsely by betraying the Hippocratic Oath. However, Rav Waldenberg comments that he is unsure whether the doctor truly needs hatarat nedarim because observant doctors might never intend for the oath to take effect in situations where it contravenes Halachah.
Acting With Prudent Judgment
The doctors who consulted Rav Breisch and Rav Waldenberg had patients with extremely serious flaws, whose concealment could not be tolerated. Everyone, however, has some flaws, so one may not rashly decide to reveal another person’s flaws to his or her dating partner. Moreover, the impact on marriage of many flaws cannot be gauged easily, and sometimes it is not even clear whether someone’s inappropriate conduct necessarily reflects a true character flaw. For example, in my experience as a mesadeir gittin (divorce officiant), I often meet people at a stressful time in their lives. If someone behaves inappropriately during divorce proceedings, it is difficult to assess whether this behavior reflects deep character flaws that will destroy the person’s next marriage, or whether the poor conduct merely resulted from the excessive stress that the divorce placed upon an otherwise decent individual. One must present these delicate cases to a competent and experienced Rav for adjudication, as a mistake in either direction can lead to devastating consequences.
Even when a flaw must be revealed, one must not hasten to reveal it before carefully considering how to present it in the least harmful manner. After ruling that a doctor must inform a groom that his bride lacks reproductive organs, Rav Waldenberg advises the doctor to first inform the woman that the Torah obligates her to reveal her flaw to her potential mate. Only if she fails to inform the groom herself should the doctor divulge the painful facts to him. It is hoped that this approach spares the woman from the humiliation that would likely result were the doctor to reveal this highly sensitive information directly to her groom. A Rav who is skilled in this area can devise similar strategies to help cushion the blow when revealing a flaw. In addition, Rav Gidon Weitzman has informed me that Machon Puah, a Jerusalem-based institute for issues of fertility and Halachah, can offer helpful advice in many situations where medical defects threaten a prospective shidduch.31Machon Puah can be reached at questions@puah.org.il.
Waiting to Reveal a Flaw
Sometimes, it is wise to reveal a flaw after a couple has begun dating, so the flaw will be considered within the greater context of the person’s character traits. For example, Rav Moshe advises the woman who had lost her virginity to withhold this information when she first begins dating a man. Although Rav Moshe requires her to reveal her past at some point before her wedding, he encourages her to wait until her relationship has progressed to serious discussions about marriage, when she can more comfortably explain to her prospective groom that she did indeed sin but has since repented completely. Regarding the woman who temporarily lost her hair, Rav Wosner similarly recommends that she begin dating while wearing a wig that appears natural, and she should reveal her medical condition only later in the relationship.
Along the same lines, Rav Hershel Schachter told Rav Ezra Frazer that one must divulge that one has been previously engaged. However, Rav Schachter suggested revealing this information after a few dates have passed, so that the relationship will have some time to develop in an unbiased manner before one’s dating partner learns of the broken engagement. At the same time, Rav Schachter cautioned that one should not wait too long before divulging this information, lest one’s dating partner later feel misled or deceived.32It is impossible to specify the precise number of dates that should pass before revealing this type of information, as the period that couples date before engagement varies greatly in length from community to community. Rav Schachter suggested that the appropriate amount of time is when the man and woman have dated long enough to developed an interest in one another but have not yet begun to discuss long-term commitment. Rav Schachter subsequently informed me that he heard that Rav Eliashiv rules that such information should be shared before the conclusion of the fourth date.
Although poskim suggest waiting before revealing the aforementioned flaws, Rav Mordechai Willig has commented that one may temporarily conceal flaws only if they are not too severe. On the other hand, Rav Willig ruled that an extremely severe flaw, such as infertility, must be revealed at the outset.
Voluntarily Revealing One’s Own Minor Flaws
Rav Gidon Weitzman offers one additional piece of practical advice. He often recommends that a man and woman even share minor flaws with one another, lest their revelation at a later stage might harm the couple’s shalom bayit (peaceful relationship). In light of this insight, it would seem foolish to conceal one’s age from a prospective spouse, even in situations when this information might be less significant than the blemishes that we have discussed in this chapter. Of course, sometimes concealing one’s age can be as serious as many of the other cases that we have discussed.33For example, if a woman in her 30's or early 40's would claim that she is even slightly younger than her actual age, her dishonesty could mislead dating partners regarding her ability to conceive children (even if the woman herself does not realize that she can no longer conceive). Thus, concealing one’s age in such circumstances would be prohibited, just as we have already mentioned that one may not conceal infertility.
Conclusion
Both speaking lashon hara unjustifiably and withholding critical information from those who must know it constitute terrible sins. Rav Ovadia Yosef and Rav Eliezer Waldenberg cite the comments of Rav Yisrael Isserlin (Pitchei Teshuvah, Orach Chaim 156), who decries the fact that people often fail to speak lashon hara when they should. At the same time, revealing non-critical flaws can unfairly destroy wonderful shidduchim. A competent Rav who has significant experience in dealing with these issues must be consulted regarding practical questions. A skilled Rav can help explain challenges to couples and counsel them appropriately, in addition to formulating a technical halachic ruling in each situation. Even when a flaw must be revealed, utmost sensitivity must be exercised in order to notify the relevant party in the least humiliating manner.