Halakhah zu Bereschit 49:1

“The appointed time of salvation is concealed.”⁵⁶This appears to be a reference to Rashi’s comment on Gen. 49:1: Jacob “wished to reveal the messianic end, but the divine presence was re-moved from him.” See also Rashi’s source, Genesis Raba 98:2. “What is in the heart is not revealed to the mouth.”⁵⁷Kohelet Raba 12:10. Who can know God’s secrets and say precisely when the impurity of the land and the people will be lifted, when the spirit, hidden in its essence but revealed in its actions, will return once again in response to improvements in the outward situation that enable its reappearance in strength and purity upon the people and the land? When will the time of lovers come again, when the people and the land will reunite and mutual goodness and blessing will flow from their relationship—not like in the days of darkness? No one knows. So we raise our eyes to see the signs that are hidden in plain sight. In their vision of the messianic era, the sages said that “there is no messianic portent more obvious than this”:⁵⁸Talmud Bavli, Sanhedrin 98a. See also Rashi ad loc. “When the Land of Israel generously gives of her fruits, then redemption is drawing near; there is no more obvious sign of the messianic end than this.” Rav Kook urges paying attention to the renewed flourishing of agriculture in the Land of Israel as a portent of impending redemption. “But you, O mountains of Israel, shall yield your produce and bear your fruit for My people Israel, for their return is near. For I will care for you: I will turn to you, and you shall be tilled and sown. I will settle a large population on you, the whole house of Israel; the towns shall be resettled and the ruined sites rebuilt. I will multiply men and beasts upon you, and they shall increase and be fertile, and I will resettle you as you were formerly, and will make you more prosperous than you were at first. And you shall know that I am the Lord.”⁵⁹Ezek. 36:8–11. This is the prooftext cited in Sanhedrin 98a (see n. 59 above).

The Gemara limits its discussion to the problems posed by the oath sworn by R. Yoḥanan not to reveal the information. But, putting aside the strictures imposed by the oath, it is manifestly clear that the woman in question imparted the requisite pharmacological information to R. Yoḥanan in confidence and that she expressly informed him of her desire that this esoteric information remain her secret. The information, to be sure, was not personal and certainly was not pejorative. It was, however, information within the exclusive possession of the woman—not unlike the information conveyed to Moses by God that would perforce have remained a divine secret if not for God's express permission to transmit the information to the people of Israel. The sole but crucial distinction is that the medical information in question was of direct and tangible benefit to R. Yoḥanan's audience and its divulgence did no harm to the woman who entrusted the information to R. Yoḥanan. On the basis of the narrative as it is reported there is every reason to assume that the woman in question did not charge a fee for her medical ministrations and hence suffered no adverse financial effect.²⁰See, R. Yitzchak Glick, Ḥinnukh Bet Yiẓḥak (Brooklyn, 5759), no. 34, who cites a narrative recorded in the Gemara, Shabbat 133b, in declaring that a professional secret may not be divulged even if failure to do so will cause a loss of income to the physician. Indeed, Leḥem Setarim, one of the classic commentaries on Avodah Zarah, resolves another difficulty unrelated to this discussion with the observation that no compensation was involved because "since [the woman] was a courtesan she had no need to accept a fee and moreover if [her services were rendered in return] for a fee how is it that she did not wish to disclose what [R. Yoḥanan] must do on Shabbat until he swore?"²¹Cf. R. Yitzchak Zilberstein, Ẓohar, vol. IV (Jerusalem, 5759), ed. R. Eliyakim Dworkes, pp. 190-92, who discusses only the issue of interference with earning a livelihood and, in distinguishing between competition with a gentile and competition with a fellow Jew, notes that the courtesan was a non-Jewess. Presumably, her motive in refusing to share the information with toothache sufferers was a desire for power or self-aggrandizement, or sheer pettiness. It would seem that this talmudic narrative serves to establish that the proprietary interest with regard to non-personal confidences established by the prohibition of bal tomar need not be respected by a confidant when it is exercised as a "trait of Sodom."²²This thesis also serves to resolve a puzzling aspect of the midrashic explanation of Jacob’s statement recorded in Genesis 49:1. On his deathbed, Jacob addresses his sons saying: “Gather yourselves together that I may tell you that which should befall you in the end of days.” Jacob then proceeds to tell them nothing of the sort; he criticizes some and blesses others but does not at all engage in prognostication. Rashi, basing himself on a midrashic comment, explains that Jacob did indeed intended to reveal when the redemption would occur but God, not wishing that information to be revealed prematurely, caused the Shekhinah to depart from Jacob with the result that he was no longer in possession of that information.
The Sages of the Midrash resolved the problem of textual interpretation but they have left us with an even graver problem. Whatever information Jacob possessed by virtue of the resting of the Shekhinah upon him was in the nature of a divine communication. If God desired His communication to Jacob of the date of the Redemption to be privileged, by what right did Jacob attempt to reveal it to his children? The prohibition of bal tomar should apply to the prophecy received by Jacob no less so than to the prophecy received by Moses. If, however, it is understood that there are no proprietary rights or rights of confidentiality that can be asserted when such information is of potential benefit to other parties and its disclosure entails no loss to the holder of the privilege, the problem is readily resolved. Jacob believed the information to be of significant psychological and emotional benefit to his progeny and since, virtually by definition, there could be no “harm” to God in its disclosure, he felt fully justified in imparting that information to his sons.