Can You Keep a Secret?

בס"ד

Confidentiality

Rabbi Tanchum Burton

CAN YOU KEEP A SECRET?

SHOULD YOU?

You are a doctor in a small town. One of your patients has become terminally ill. The patient just got engaged to a young woman who does not know about the illness. You know her and her family as well. What do you do? Do you say nothing in order to protect the confidential nature of your relationship with your patient, or tell the young woman that she is very likely to be a young widow if she goes through with the wedding?

***

Two of your friends are going into business together: they are creating a delivery service. One will responsible for manning the office and taking orders over the phone, while the other will be responsible for driving the van to its respective locations. You know that the second person is a reckless driver who, besides having wrecked several cars, has had his license suspended in the past. In order to protect him from potential loss, do you inform the other partner, or do you keep silent?

POINTS TO PONDER:

When should we keep secrets, and when should we reveal them?
Is there a difference between violating confidentiality on a personal level and doing so on a professional level?
What does Judaism say about keeping / revealing secrets?
Are secrets a ‘good’ thing?

OUTLINE

SHARING INFORMATION
REVEALING SECRETS
PROFESSIONAL CONFIDENTIALITY
DOCTOR CASE IN DEPTH
MODERN WESTERN CONFIDENTIALITY CODES
THE LAW OF THE ‘PURSUER’ (rodef)

I. SHARING INFORMATION

What is so bad about being a peddler?

What does the Torah mean by ‘peddler’?

Furthermore, what does blood have to do with peddling?

Maimonides, Laws of Deos
What is a “peddler” [as described in the previous verse]?
One who loads himself with things/words and carries them from one person to another, saying, “So-and-so said…”, or “I heard such-and-such about so-and-so”.
Even if the gossip is true, this activity destroys the world[1].[2] /

רמב"ם הלכות דעות פרק ז הלכה ב

אי זהו רכיל זה שטוען דברים והולך מזה לזה ואומר כך אמר פלוני כך וכך שמעתי על פלוני אע"פ שהוא אמת הרי זה מחריב את העולם

Why do you think “peddling” destroys the world?

Can we reveal informal conversations that we had with others?

Babylonian Talmud, Yuma 4b
R’ Menasia: from where do we learn that when one says something to his fellow, that other should not divulge the information? The verse states (Leviticus 1:1): And G d spoke to him [Moses] from the Tent of Meeting, saying…”[3] / תלמוד בבלי מסכת יומא דף ד עמוד ב
אמר רבי מוסיא בר בריה דרבי מסיא משמיה דרבי מוסיא) רבה מניין לאומר דבר לחבירו שהוא בבל יאמר עד שיאמר לו לך אמור שנאמר וידבר ה' אליו מאהל מועד לאמר
Rashi, ibid.
THAT HE SHOULD NOT DIVULGE:
The Torah says: “saying” [laymor] means lo emor (“do not say”), i.e., do not divulge the information unless the one who told it to you gives you permission.[4] / רש"י מסכת יומא דף ד עמוד ב
שהוא בבל יאמר כו' –
תלמוד לומר: לאמר - לא אמור הדברים אלא אם כן נותן לו רשות.

II.REVEALING SECRETS

How far does other people’s privacy go?

When should we reveal someone’s secret?

Chelkas Yaakov, Notes on Even HaEzer 79:1
There is no prohibition of evil gossip when one reveals information to his fellow if he does so in order that his fellow can protect himself. / שו"ת חלקת יעקב הערות לאה"ע סימן עט הערה א
אין בזה איסור לה"ר מה שמגלה לחבירו שישמר מזה

In such a situation, can we then just say anything?

Can we ‘add color’ to make a point?

Chofetz Chaim, Laws of Rechilus 9:2

One may not exaggerate in one’s description of a particular issue to underscore its negative aspects…one’s intent must be solely for the benefit of the person hearing the information, e.g. to rescue or protect someone from harm, not because of hatred…[5] / חפץ חיים הל' רכילות כלל ט' פרק ב'
שלא יגדיל בסיפורו את הענין לרע ממה שהוא...שיכון רק לתועלת, דהיינו לסלק הנזקין מזה, ולא מצד שנאה...

SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT:

Review the two stories from the beginning of this session and “process them” by using the sources listed until this point.

What conclusions did you reach?

III.PROFESSIONAL CONFIDENTIALITY

Rabbi Mordechai Yaakov Bresich, author of Chelkas Yaakov
Rabbi Mordechai Yaakov Breisch was born in Poland in 1896. He served as the rabbi of several communities in both Poland and Germany, before fleeing from the Nazis in 1934. He then settled in Switzerland, where he served as a rabbi, galvanizing the Jewish community and supporting its educational institutions. In 1951 the first volume of his responsa Chelkas Yaakov was published and was widely acclaimed. This was followed by a second volume in 1959, and a third in 1966. R. Breisch’s sons published the fourth volume posthumously in 1979. A new edition was published in Tel Aviv, 1992, with the responsa arranged according to the order of the Shulchan Aruch.

The first story we shared (about the doctor, the patient, and the bride) really happened! Consider this case study:

Responsa of the Chelkas Yaakov, Even HaEzer 79
Whether a doctor is obligated by Jewish law to reveal a secret, e.g., whether he must inform a woman that her fiancé is very ill and that she should not marry him.
A religious doctor asked me an interesting question.
A certain young man, twenty years old had, G d forbid, a dangerous illness (G d forbid, cancer), and neither the man nor his family knew of the illness. Of course, this is part of medical practice not to divulge this type of information to the patient nor his family in order not to exacerbate the illness by doing so. This young man became engaged to a young girl whom he wanted to marry.
The question was whether the doctor was obligated to inform the prospective bride of this, as according to the doctor, this young man would not live more than one to two years—and if the girl knew this she would not want to marry him.
Or would it be a better option for him to keep silent, for since he had not been asked of this …[6]
After some research into this topic, I concluded that the doctor is obligated to divulge this information to the bride, for two reasons:
First, the prohibition of “you shall not stand idly by your brother’s blood.”[7]
Second, the prohibition of “you shall not place a stumbling block before the blind.” / שו"ת חלקת יעקב אה"ע סימן עט ד"ה אם הרופא
אם הרופא מחויב לגלות סודו להכלה, בידעו שהחתן שלה מסוכן מאד ושלא תנשא לו
רופא חרדי שאלני שאלה מענינת, וז"ל
בחור אחד כבן עשרים שנה יש לו רח"ל חולאת מסוכנת (רח"ל סרטן) ולהחולה עצמו וגם למשפחתו לא נודע כלל מזה, וכמובן שזה מחוקי הרופאים שלא לאמור זאת להקרובים וגם לא להחולה בכדי שלא יכבד עליו החולאת כשיתוודע זאת להחולה, והוא נתארס לנערה בתולה ורוצה לינשא עמה,
והשאלה אם מחויב לאמור זאת להכלה, כי לפי דעת הרופאים לא יחי' יותר משנה או שנתיים, וכמובן שאם הכלה תדע זאת לא תנשא עמו, או שב ואל תעשה עדיף דכל זמן שלא נשאל על זה …
ולאחר העיון קצת בזה, נלפע"ד שמחויב הרופא לומר זאת להכלה, ובאתי בזה בשתים.
א) לא תעמוד על דם רעך עכ"ל.
ב) יש בזה הלאו דלפ"ע

How do you understand this decision?

How does this compare with the modern idea of ‘mandated reporting’ and other contemporary disclosure laws?

IV.DOCTORCASE IN DEPTH

Let’s examine Rabbi Bresich’s decision to inform the bride’s family, in light of the two factors he raised:

The prohibition “you shall not stand idly by your fellow’s blood.”
The prohibition “you shall not place a stumbling block before a blind person.”

The First Factor (fellow’s blood)

Leviticus 19:16
You shall not go as a peddler amongst your people; you shall not stand idly by your fellow’s blood. / ויקרא פרק יט
(טז)לֹא תֵלֵךְ רָכִיל בְּעַמֶּיךָ לֹא תַעֲמֹד עַל דַּם רֵעֶךָ אֲנִי יְקֹוָק:
Code of Jewish Law, Choshen Mishpat 426:1
One who sees his fellow drowning in the sea, or being attacked by bandits or a vicious animal and it is within his power to save him, but he does not save him;
or if he heard idol worshippers or informers either plotting evil against his fellow or setting a trap for him, and he does not reveal the information;
or, if he knows that an idol worshipper or oppressor has evil intent to hurt his friend, and he would be able to appease the potential assailant but does not appease him—
in all of these situations, one who acts in this way has transgressed the commandment of “you shall not stand idly by the blood of your fellow.” /

שולחן ערוך חושן משפט סימן תכו סעיף א

הרואה את חבירו טובע בים, או לסטים באין עליו, או חיה רעה באה עליו, ויכול להצילו הוא בעצמו א או שישכור אחרים להציל, ולא הציל;
או ששמע עובדי כוכבים או מוסרים מחשבים עליו רעה או טומנים לו פח ולא גילה אוזן חבירו והודיעו;
או שידע בעובד כוכבים או באנס שהוא בא על חבירו, ויכול לפייסו בגלל חבירו ולהסיר מה שבלבו ולא פייסו,
וכיוצא בדברים אלו, עובר על לא תעמוד על דם רעך (ויקרא יט, טז).

How would you summarize the prohibition?[8]

Now what do you think of the juxtaposition of the concepts of gossip and rescuing others, put together in one verse?

The Second Factor (stumbling block)

Leviticus 19:14

You shall not place a stumbling block before a blind person… / ויקרא פרק יט:יד
לִפְנֵי עִוֵּר לֹא תִתֵּן מִכְשֹׁל

How do you understand this verse?

Is the verse talking about a real stumbling block and someone who can’t see? (How often do ‘nice’ people do that?!)

Consider the following explanations:

Rashi, ibid.
YOU SHALL NOT PLACE, ETC.:
Before one who is blind to a particular situation, i.e.
do not give advice that is not helpful to him, do not say, “sell your field and buy a donkey,” only to buy the field yourself. / רש"י ויקרא פרק יט
ולפני עור לא תתן מכשל - לפני הסומא בדבר לא תתן עצה שאינה הוגנת לו, אל תאמר מכור שדך וקח לך חמור, ואתה עוקף עליו ונוטלה הימנו:
Maimonides, Laws Concerning a Murderer and Self Protection 12:14
… all cases wherein one causes a vulnerable person to stumble, whether by giving him advice that is detrimental to him; or by strengthening the hands of a sinner, who is vulnerable in the sense that he does not see the truth because of the desires of his heart—
anyone who does this violates the positive commandment, “you shall not place a stumbling block before a blind person”.
[This means] when one comes to you for advice, give him advice that is helpful to him. / רמב"ם הלכות רוצח ושמירת הנפש פרק יב הלכה יד
…כל המכשיל עור בדבר והשיאו עצה שאינה הוגנת או שחיזק ידי עוברי עבירה שהוא עור ואינו רואה דרך האמת מפני תאות לבו
הרי זה עובר בלא תעשה שנ' ולפני עור לא תתן מכשול.
הבא ליטול ממך עצה תן לו עצה ההוגנת לו.

SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT:

Are these situations common or uncommon?

How would these ideas apply to:

Neglecting to inform someone?
Passively allowing someone to experience “natural consequences”?

VII.MODERN WESTERN CONFIDENTIALITY CODES

Consider the following quotations from modern codes.

What differences and similarities do you see?

National Association of Social Workers Code of Ethics 1.07:c
Social workers should protect the confidentiality of all information obtained in the course of professional service, except for compelling professional reasons. The general expectation that social workers will keep information confidential does not apply when disclosure is necessary to prevent serious, foreseeable, and imminent harm to a client or other identifiable person.

American Psychological Association, Ethics Code 4.05:b

Psychologists disclose confidential information without the consent of the individual only as mandated by law, or where permitted by law for a valid purpose such as to (1) provide needed professional services; (2) obtain appropriate professional consultations; (3) protect the client/patient, psychologist, or others from harm; or (4) obtain payment for services from a client/patient, in which instance disclosure is limited to the minimum that is necessary to achieve the purpose.

American Medical Association’s approach to confidentiality[9]

Information disclosed to a physician during the course of the patient-physician relationship is confidential to the utmost degree….Full disclosure enables the physician to diagnose conditions properly and to treat the patient appropriately. In return for the patient's honesty, the physician generally should not reveal confidential communications or information without the patient's express consent unless required to disclose the information by law. There are exceptions to the rule, such as where a patient threatens bodily harm to himself or herself or to another person.

VI.THE JEWISH PARAMETERS FOR CONFIDENTIALITY

You are a doctor. A patient comes to you with a request for a physical exam necessary for a driver’s license. After a thorough case history taken, you discover that he suffers from narcolepsy, a disorder wherein he lapses into temporary sleep at erratic times during the day. He says it almost never happens and that he can tell and pull over quickly if need be. If you don’t inform the license bureau, you may be enabling this person to endanger the lives of others.

What does Judaism say about this case?

Code of Jewish Law, Choshen Mishpat 425:1
One who pursues his fellow with intent to murder, and despite being warned continues to pursue—even if the pursuer is a child—every Jew is obligated to rescue the pursued by maiming the pursuer in one of his limbs.
If it is impossible to aim precisely at a limb, and the only way to rescue the pursued is by killing the pursuer, all are obligated to kill him even if he has not yet committed the murder. / שולחן ערוך חושן משפט סימן תכה סעיף א
הרודף את חבירו להרגו, והזהירוהו, והרי הוא רודף אחריו, אפילו היה הרודף קטן, הרי כל ישראל מצווים להצילו באבר מאברי הרודף, ואם אינם יכולים לכוין ולא להצילו אלא א"כ יהרגו לרודף, הרי אלו הורגים אותו אף על פי שעדיין לא הרג

Do we only get involved if the pursuer is trying to kill?

Rabbi Moshe Isserles, ibid.
One who comes with a scheme to rob another is also judged as a pursuer.
However, if it is known that he is only involved in robbery for the money and if confronted would not kill the owner of the money, it is forbidden to kill that robber.
One who endangers the public, for example, by committing forgery where the government will prosecute, is judged as a pursuer and it is permitted to report him to the government. /

הגהות הרמ"א שם

הגה: הבא במחתרת לגנוב גם כן דינו כרודף. ואם ידוע שלא בא רק על עסק ממון, ואף אם יעמוד בעל הממון נגדו לא יהרגהו, אסור להרגו.
מי שמסכן רבים, כגון שעוסק בזיופים במקום שהמלכיות מקפידות, דינו כרודף ומותר למסרו למלכות (נימוקי מהר"מ מריזבורג), כמו שנתבאר לעיל סימן שפ"ח סי"ב.
Biur HaGr”a, ibid, #11
ONE WHO ENDANGERS, ETC.: Even if it isn’t his intention to endanger others. /

ביאור הגר"א שם ס"ק י"א

מי שמסכן כו'. אע"פ שאין כוונתו לסכן וגו'

How do these sources affect driving license scenario above?

What about the other scenarios that we’ve seen?

PLEASE NOTE: Nothing in this session (or the entire course) should be taken as authoritative Jewish law. The sources presented here are merely to ‘get us thinking’ – in any real case a competent Torah scholar should be consulted.

[1] We can see that Maimonides picks up on the juxtaposition of the concepts of peddling, i.e. information-sharing, and blood that occurs in the verse in #1.

[2] On the simple level, the danger of spreading negative gossip is in its ability to sow hatred between people, leading to greater and greater offenses, which destroy the ‘civilized’ world of human society.

[3] In other words, G d did not speak to anyone else but Moses—a confidential exchange.

[4] The sentence, if read literally would read as follows: “And G d spoke to Moses from the Tent of Meeting to say.” Given that we already know that G d spoke to Moses, it is seemingly redundant to end the verse with “to say”. When that happens, the redundant text bears another meaning, like the explanation given by Rashi.

[5] The Chofetz Chaim also indicates that the negative information shared has to be information that will be the determining factor in the decision-making process, e.g. whether or not to marry someone.

[6]If he had been asked, there would be an extra obligation to give good advice…

[7] Note that the prohibition “you shall not stand idly by your fellow’s blood” is used in the exact opposite manner in which Maimonides applied it. Before, sharing information was viewed as akin to violating that commandment. Now, not sharing the information would be a violation of that commandment.

[8]It is clear that we are obligated to save others whenever possible, and it is forbidden not to. Consider the following from the Tzitz Eliezer

שו"תציץאליעזרחלקטזסימןד

למדנומדבריהרמב"םוהשו"עהנז' שבכללהאיסורשללאתעמודעלדםרעךכלוללארקכשהמדוברעלשפיכותדמיםממש, אלאהואכוללעלכלהעומדמנגדונמנעמלעשותפעולהכדילהצילאתחבירומכלרעהשחורשיםעליואומכלפחשטומניםלו, ולאודוקארציחהממש, והואיכוללהצילומזההןבאופןפיזי, הןעלידיפיוסשיפייסאתחושבהרעה, והןעלידיהקדמהלהקדיםלגלותמזהאתאוזןחבירו, ואיננועושהזאת, בכלאלההואעוברעללאושללאתעמודעלדםרעך.

שו"תציץאליעזרחלקטזסימןד

ובדומה לזה ראיתי שכותב בספר פתחי תשובה על או"ח סי' קנ"ו וז"ל: כל ספרי המוסר מרעישים העולם על עון לה"ר, ואני מרעיש העולם להיפוך עון גדול מזה וגם הוא מצוי יותר, והוא מניעת עצמו מלדבר במקום שנצרך להציל עשוק מיד עושקו וכו' לענין ממון הוא בכלל השבת אבידה וכו' וכן בעניני שידוך והוא יודע שהוא איש רע ובליעל ורע להתחתן עמו, כולן בכלל השבת גופו וממונו עיי"ש

[9] Reference: