Question
I was offered a shidduch by a shadchan. I met the girl once and she was very good but we both agreed that we are not a good match. I have a first cousin who is also in shidduchim and I think she would be a very good match for him. I am not interested in earning money but would like to help my uncle if possible since he is struggling and if I offer him the shidduch he won't have to pay money. Is it permissible or must I inform the shadchan about my cousin and let her earn the money?
Answer
This is a particular case of a more general issue of using information that you are given with the intention that it remain private. We will discuss the general question and see how it applies to you.
There are two issues that must be considered. The first is whether there is anything wrong with using information you were given with the intent that it not be shared. The second issue is whether, if you use it to earn money, must you share the money with the source of your information.
We will begin with the first issue and will examine the reasons it might be forbidden and whether they apply to your situation. The Mishne Halachos (7, 280) was asked a similar question by the director of Mesivta Torah Voda'as' placement office. His question was whether a person who was informed by the office of an available rabbinical position but decided that he doesn't want the job himself, may inform another person about the position, or must he notify the office of his decision and allow them to try to find another candidate.
The Mishne Halachos says that perhaps it is forbidden because the Gemara (Yoma 4B) derives from a pasuk that if someone was given information, he may not tell it to others unless he was given explicit permission. The Semag (Lavin 9) cites this Gemara, indicating that he considers it a Biblical prohibition. However, the Mishne Halachos also cites the Me'iri who understands that the Gemara is just deriving that it is improper behavior but not an actual prohibition.
The Chafetz Chaim (Be'eir Maim Chayim, Loshon Hora 2, 27) discusses this Gemara and, after citing the Semag and Me'iri, rules that the prohibition is limited to information that could either harm the one whose information is being revealed (like a trade secret) or that the speaker indicated that he does not want it publicized. He explains that the second aspect is what we learn from the pasuk (Vayikro 1, 1) since the pasuk describes how, when Hashem spoke to Moshe, he did not allow his words to be heard beyond the walls of the Ohel Mo'eid. Hashem's action indicated that Hashem did not want others to hear directly from Him.
The Mishne Halachos notes that in this case of a rabbinic position, those who informed Torah Voda'as that they were seeking applicants really wanted the information publicized as much as possible since their goal was to find a suitable person. It was to their advantage that more people were aware of the vacancy. It was only Torah Voda'as that did not want the information publicized. Therefore, he ruled that it is forbidden for the first candidate to inform others only if Torah Voda'as specifically stipulated to him when they divulged the information that he may not tell others.
The shadchan seems in a far weaker position than Torah Voda'as since, while most shuls are not looking for a rabbi and therefore the information that a particular shul is looking for a rabbi is not public information, everyone knows that a boy or girl who is of a suitable age and not yet married is probably looking for a shidduch. Therefore, even though the shadchan may not want you to propose the shidduch because she wants to earn the money, nevertheless she did not reveal any unknown information to you, so one cannot include your case in the prohibition to divulge information.
Moreover, even though the existence of this particular girl may have been revealed to you by the shadchan, nevertheless just revealing a girl's identity is not the work that the shadchan would have been paid for if she had been successful. The job of a shadchan is to match two partners successfully. Even the payment that is given to the maschil (the one who proposed the shidduch to the parties) is for getting the two parties interested in meeting and not merely for providing information.
This issue comes up frequently in business and leads to another halachic prohibition that we must consider. A case that the Minchas Yitzchok (2, 94) was asked to decide concerned C who was an employee of B to sell a product. C was given a list of potential customers by B and he sold them B's product for a few years. Subsequently, C went to A (who was B's supplier) and began selling the same product to B's customers, cutting B out of the business. The Minchas Yitzchok ruled that C's behavior was forbidden because he was a yoreid le'umnos chaveiro-ruining someone's livelihood.
He ruled similarly (3, 127) in the case of a company that had a salesman A who found them clients to buy their product. After twenty years, the company began selling another similar product and gave the client list that A had developed to B (who was a relative of the owner of the company) to market the new product. This ruined A's livelihood since all the clients he had brought to the company now bought through B. Again, the Minchas Yitzchok ruled that the company's behavior was forbidden because of yoreid le'umnos chaveiro.
In your situation this issue does not exist. Even if people who were informed of a shidduch could later present the shidduch to their relatives, it will not ruin the shadchan's livelihood since it is not frequent that someone who is presented with a shidduch knows someone who is fitting for the person he met. Furthermore, if the shadchan does not know your cousin the shidduch you want to propose is not really coming at the shadchan's expense.
We note that while these prohibitions do not apply to shidduchim, they do apply to a real estate agent who deals with apartment rentals. Thus, Rav Mendel Schaffrin ruled (Hayoshor Vehatov vol. 5 page 30) that a person who is shown an apartment available for rent by a real estate agent is not allowed to inform another person of the apartment's availability because the information that an apartment is available is private information that is valuable to the agent. Rav Schaffrin gave as a source the ruling of the Gemara cited above that one is not allowed to tell over something unless he was explicitly given permission to do so. The reason there is a difference between real estate agents and shadchanim concerning this prohibition is that keeping information private is critical for real estate agents but not for shadchanim.
It should be noted that another reason that yoreid le'umnos chaveiro applies in the case of real estate agents is, as Rav Schaffrin notes, that keeping the information private is critical for the agent's livelihood. If we allow renters who are shown apartments to inform other prospective renters, agents will lose much of their business. The difference between rentals and shidduchim is that shidduchim require thought and they must be a good fit, but in contrast many people are looking to rent apartments and it will be relatively easy for one who was shown an apartment to find someone else who is interested in renting.
A second issue to consider in these cases is whether, if one uses the information and profits thereby, must he share the profit with the source of his information. In the case of the real estate agent, if the one who was informed of an apartment's availability in order to rent it himself turns around and informs someone else of the apartment's availability and the renter then pays him money as an agent, must he then share the payment with the original agent?
The Pischei Choshen (Sechirus 14, note 10) rules that one who received money must share the money with the original agent. However, he offers no proof for his assertion. It seems that his reason is because the second agent used the information which he gave him in order to earn money and one must pay for benefits that he derived from another.
A case that is somewhat similar was discussed by the Noda B'yehuda (Tinyana CM 24) where A paid a publisher for setting type for his own sefer and, after publishing A's sefer, the publisher used the type to print the sefer again. The Noda B'yehuda ruled that the publisher must pay A since he benefited from the type setting that A had paid for.
However, if we consider the Noda B'yehuda's reasoning we can derive the opposite conclusion from the Pischei Choshen. The only reason the Noda B'yehuda ruled that the publisher must pay is because A certainly suffered a loss from the publisher's use of the type and the rule is that one must pay if his benefit comes at his benefactor's loss-ze nehene veze choseir. However, the real estate agent did not suffer a certain loss for many reasons. Perhaps he would not have found a renter.
In conclusion: You may propose the shidduch to your cousin.
