Our Gemara on Amud Beis wrestles with a linguistic conundrum: how a man should phrase a condition in his Get, to be considered valid and executed a moment prior to his death, but not be activated should he survive. This was a common practice to protect people from falling to Yibum to a much younger brother who is not appropriate to marry:

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: "אִם לֹא מַתִּי לֹא יְהֵא גֵּט, אִם מַתִּי יְהֵא גֵּט, אִם לֹא מַתִּי לֹא יְהֵא גֵּט" –

Rather, Rava said that the condition in the bill of divorce of a dying man should be worded in the following manner: "If I do not die, this will not be a bill of divorce. If I die, this will be a bill of divorce, and if I do not die, this will not be a bill of divorce."

״אִם לֹא מַתִּי לֹא יְהֵא גֵּט״ – לָא מַקְדֵּים אִישׁ פּוּרְעָנוּתָא לְנַפְשֵׁיהּ; ״אִם מַתִּי יְהֵא גֵּט, אִם לֹא מַתִּי לֹא יְהֵא גֵּט״ – בָּעֵינַן הֵן קוֹדְמִין לְלָאוֹ.

The Gemara explains the necessity for such a formulation: The husband first says, "If I do not die, this will not be a bill of divorce," because a person does not hasten a calamity upon himself. Therefore, he first mentions the possibility that he will not die. Then he states the compound condition in the following order: "If I die, this will be a bill of divorce, and if I do not die, this will not be a bill of divorce." This is because we require that the affirmative precedes the negative.

Based on this Gemara, Ben Ish Chai (Shu”t Torah Lishmah 376) suggests that when it is possible, one should always sandwich the bad between good statements. For example, if somebody is discussing the pros and cons of an upcoming business deal, he should say something like, "Profits are expected to be at a rate of return of 25%, but there is a possibility that we will lose money, but hopefully we will succeed." While Ben Ish Chai admits that this kind of phraseology is awkward, he thinks it is worth it, and people of the proper caliber would understand why you’re speaking in that manner and appreciate it.

The idea of sandwiching painful things between two positive things is also an important communication tool. John Gottman’s marriage research advocates a certain style of relating that is less likely to trigger defensiveness and create more emotional receptivity. It is known as the “Soft Start-Up.” One way to achieve a soft start-up is to broach difficult topics with an opening statement that genuinely validates and shows respect or understanding for the other person's perspective, then injects the particular criticism or complaint, and then ends again with a positive validating statement. I liken this to the Korech sandwich at the Seder; you keep the bitter herb sandwiched between the two pieces of Matzah. So too, the harsher statement is sandwiched with the positive. Here are three examples:

1. "I can understand that yesterday you were in a big hurry to leave the house, and I know that your current job situation is stressful. Unfortunately, you forgot to take out the garbage again, and it makes extra stress on my part, especially after having asked so many times. I do understand, though, that you have a lot on your plate as well. What are your thoughts?"

2. "I can see how difficult it is when you are tired and all three children are making demands at the same time. I get that it is difficult for you to stick with the boundaries and consequences that we decided would be good to implement for discipline. Still, I’m frustrated because I think when you give in to the tantrum, you are encouraging the wrong behavior in the long run. I do still understand how challenging it is when you are stuck all day by yourself with demanding children. What are your thoughts?"

3. "I know that you want to do what is right by your parents, and it is difficult sometimes to feel like you’re in a bind between what your parents want and what is good for our family. It is a painful situation. At the same time, sometimes I don’t think it’s healthy, and I think it’s actually hurtful when you cave into their needs and forget about what is good for me or good for the children. I do understand again how difficult it is, and you did not want to hurt your parents or make them angry with you. What are your thoughts?"

Notice how in all these cases, there is an effort to understand the other person’s subjective needs and the intrinsic validity of their point of view. There is criticism in the middle, but it is not overstated nor understated. It concludes with more validation, and most importantly, it asks the other person for their perspective. Adopting an approach like this is more likely to produce collaborative brainstorming instead of finger-pointing and frustration.