Seudat Hodaa: A False Alarm
In one of the editions of the "Eretz Chemda," a weekly halacha newsletter published by the Eretz Chemda Kollel for the training of rabbinical judges, a very interesting halachic issue was discussed: If a person had been under the impression that he was in a life-threatening situation, is it appropriate for him to still recite the "hagomel" blessing and to hold the customary seudat hodaa, thanksgiving meal, as is done when a person survives a real such situation?[1] For example, what if a doctor informed a patient that he has a terminal illness with little time to live, and then some time later, the doctor realizes that his diagnosis was wrong and that the patient is essentially healthy. Would such a person hold a seudat hoda’ah?
The Gemara and Shulchan Aruch rule that one who recuperates from a serious illness must recite the hagomel blessing.[2] The Rema, however, limits this ruling and says that it is only recited following an illness that was life-threatening.[3] The rabbis of Eretz Chemda suggest that the answer to our question depends on the differences between these two approaches. Is a true life-threatening situation needed in order to justify reciting the hagomel blessing or does any form of recovery justify its recitation? It seems that according to both approaches, if it is later discovered that there was no threat to life at all then the blessing would not be recited.
That being said, however, there is reason to distinguish between reciting the hagomel blessing and arranging a seudat hodaa. The idea of making a seudat hoda'a is more of a custom than a requirement, as it isn’t even mentioned in the Shulchan Aruch. There are no rules, parameters, or regulations on how or when a seudat hodaa should be held. The hagomel blessing, on the other hand, is a requirement whose rules and regulations are codified in the Shulchan Aruch.
There is a story in the Talmud that Rav Avahu went to visit Rav Zeira when he was sick.[4] Rav Avahu declared that he would make a feast for all the rabbis if Rav Zeira would recover from his illness as a token of appreciation and gratitude for his recovery. Rav Zeira did indeed recover and the seudat hodaa was held. It is argued that if a person felt the need to promise such a feast under what was assumed to be the circumstances at the time, it would be unbecoming to later claim that the promise is no longer binding because it was based on misinformation. As such, it can be suggested that it is the good news itself which warrants a seudat hodaa, and not necessarily the existence of an actual illness that was cured.
Similarly, there is a story about Rav Yosef who was blind.[5] Rav Yosef declared that he would make a feast for the rabbis if someone could demonstrate that the opinion that a blind person is exempt from mitzvot is incorrect. This is because it was important to him to be reassured that blind people are rewarded for performing mitzvot just like everyone else. Here too, it was simply the good news that the blind are indeed obligated in mitzvot which warranted Rav Yosef's seudat hodaa.
Based on the above, the rabbis of Eretz Chemda ruled that a seudat hodaa is appropriate in situations of a “false alarm.” Indeed, a person's life is always in some form of danger, but it is nature's way that we are unaware of it until we are made to feel it. As such, whenever we are confronted with our mortality, it is appropriate to make a seudat hodaa when the threat passes, for whatever reason, should one choose to do so.
[1] The original essay can be seen here: http://eretzhemdah.org/qna.asp?pageid=3&lang=en&cat=&str=hagomel.
[2] Berachot 54b; OC 219:8.
[3] Rema, OC 219:8.
[4] Berachot 46a.
[5] Bava Kama 87a.