Our Gemara on Amud Aleph uses the idiom, הֱוֵי פִּקֵּחַ וּשְׁתוֹק Be shrewd and keep silent. Here it is used in reference to a public sacrifice that would be kosher if brought while impure, given there is no other substitute. Since it is a fait accompli, and technically it is kosher, there is no value in the Cohen sharing information about the sacrifice. Why cause unnecessary despair?
This terminology is used in another example in Shas, by Meiri (Bava Kama 46b) to counsel a person in regard to not pushing Beis Din for a judgement when the plaintiff did not yet produce evidence, in other words, let sleeping dogs lie. Sefer Chasidim (962) uses it as an aphorism to advise a wise student to listen to other students’ questions more and be patient. In any case, we know from human experience there are times where it is more prudent to keep our thoughts to ourselves even when we believe ourselves to be correct.
In marriage, the decision about when to criticize and when not, is fraught with challenge. An intimate relationship cannot be fully intimate if there are resentments and disappointments that cannot be let go of. Yet, some things ought never be said. A spouse will be wounded deeply if told about certain shortcomings. What if a spouse has an annoying habit, poor hygiene, or some other embarrassing feature that is killing your attraction but is just too hurtful to mention? These criticisms should be ona’as devarim (hurtful speech) which is forbidden, as described in Bava Metzia 58b and Shulkhan Arukh Choshen Mishpat 228. But if you don’t bring these issues up they can fester and ruin romance and attraction? What do you do?
First, it is important to distinguish between flaws perceived by perfectionistic tendencies, rigidity, judgmentalism than by those of more objective shortcomings. Persons with an Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder (not the same as OCD Obsessive Compulsive Disorder) suffer from traits such as extreme demands for perfection, neatness and order, as well as personal rigidity, judgmentalism and inability to express emotions. Such persons may be overbearing and irritated by relatively small and typical problems and can harp on a spouse’s normal and human limitations. They might scrutinize body shape, body odors and skin flaws to a degree that is impossible, constantly being dissatisfied. If this seems to be the case, then not only should the person withhold commenting, but he or she should seek psychotherapy counseling to learn how to reprogram these destructive and unreasonable thought patterns and concomitant emotional states.
However, if the shortcomings seem to be objectively real, there is at least a reality basis for them and one needs to consider how to tactfully approach the situation. Despite being based on an objective reality, such comments could be devastatingly hurtful. From a logical point of view, and logic is not the only thing to consider, one should only go down this path if the amount of overall emotional distress that keeping silent causes is greater than the amount of emotional distress that discussing it will cause. When I say emotional distress I mean the sum total of distress to both parties.
There is some precedent to this thinking in halakha. For example, one is not obligated to go through the humiliation of returning a lost object if it is beneath his or her dignity, to the extent that even if his or her own object was lying in the street he or she would not pick it up. Say somebody’s underwear was lying in the street. For some people it would be undignified to stoop down and pick it up and carry it publicly. If they wouldn’t do it for their own, they’re not obligated to do it for somebody else. Another example comes from assisting an animal buckling under its load, where again if it would be undignified for him to assist and he would leave his own load in the street, therefore he is not obligated to do so for another. (Both scenarios are discussed in Bava Metzia 30b). But this is not a completely legitimate comparison, as in our case as opposed to the Gemara’s, one is selfishly introducing his own need into a situation instead of merely choosing how to respond to a need that manifested itself upon him. Nevertheless, it shows that there is an idea of personal distress versus gain that is taken into account. A better example might be the Toeles heter for l’shon hora and presumably applies to all kinds of hurtful speech. (Although according to Chofetz Chaim Hilchos L’shon Hora 10, you will need to fulfill all the criteria, the most relevant being utter sincerity with zero intention to hurt the person, that would be with no emotional resentment or aggression.)
A more creative heter comes from the halakha that one is forbidden to ask a price of an object from the salesperson if you have no interest in buying it (Bava Metzia 58b, and Shulkhan Arukh CM 228:4). The question is, why should it be permitted to ask a price and then decline even when you did have possible intention to buy it. After all, in the end, aren’t you still causing the seller distress? The logical answer is that since you do not primarily intend to cause distress, and you are just conducting normal commerce, and this is the manner in which business is conducted, it is not forbidden. Thus, one might argue similarly, basic negotiations and feedback in a relationship, though at times might involve painful criticism, would be permitted in the same fashion. Provided that the primary intent is not to hurt and it is about conducting normal life.
If after all this analysis, one feels That the relationship is in danger unless he or she voices the criticism, it is helpful to consider the following concept. The famous researcher and psychologist John Gottman introduced the idea Of the emotional bank account. He discovered, that so long as a ratio of five positive interactions to one negative interaction was maintained, the relationship is stable. That is, whatever the ups and downs are that occur, if there are at least five positive experiences to one negative, the bank account remains, so to speak, solvent instead of bankrupt. Thus, theoretically, one might argue a relationship that has five genuine compliments in the bank account could survive a criticism. However, when I am working with couples, knowing that egos are already bruised and damaged, and there is much relationship trauma, I suggest a “chumrah”. Consider every genuine compliment as putting one dollar in the bank, and consider every criticism as a withdrawal of $100. I believe because criticisms can be so hurtful, it is necessary to maintain a much larger ratio. Don’t let your bank account become overdrawn or you will pay severe penalties.
Translations Courtesy of Sefaria, except when, sometimes, I disagree with the translation 
Do you like what you see? Please subscribe and also forward any articles you enjoy to your friends, (enemies too, why not?)