וְעַתָּה נַחְזֹר לְבָאֵר מַה שֶּׁהִתַּרְנוּ בִּתְחִלַּת סָעִיף ד', אִם הֶחָתָן יֵשׁ לוֹ חֶסְרוֹנוֹת עֲצּוּמִים, כִּי יֵשׁ נָפְקָא מִנַּה {הבדל} בֵּין הַחֶסְרוֹנוֹת. דְּהַיְנוּ, אִם הַחִסָרוֹן הוּא מִצַּד חֳלִי גּוּפוֹ, וְהַמְחֻתָּן אֵינוֹ מַכִּיר אוֹתוֹ, מִצַּד שֶׁהוּא דָּבָר פְּנִימִי אֲשֶׁר לֹא נִגְלָה לַכֹּל, פָּשׁוּט הוּא, דְּאֵין עַל הַמְגַלֶּה עִנְיָן זֶה (ז) חֲשַׁשׁ אִסוּר רְכִילוּת, אַךְ שֶׁלֹּא יַחְסְרוּ בָּזֶה (ח) הַפְּרָטִים הַנַּל בִּכְלָל ט' סָעִיף ב', וּבֵאַרְתִּים פֹּה בִּבְאֵר מַיִם חַיִּים. And now we shall return to explain what we permitted in the beginning of section 4, in an instance of the [prospective] groom's having great defects. For there is a difference between the defects. That is, if the defect is in respect to a bodily ill that the father of the [prospective] bride is unaware of, it being something internal that is not revealed to all, it is obvious that the one who reveals this is not suspect of any issur of rechiluth (so long as none of the conditions mentioned in Principle IX, section 2 are lacking. And I have explained them here in the Be'er Mayim Chayim.)
וְעוֹד יֵשׁ אֹפֶן שֵׁנִי, דְּצָרִיךְ לְגַלּוֹת לוֹ, הַיְנוּ, אִם נִשְׁמַע עַל הֶחָתָן, שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ אֶפִיקוֹרְסוּת, חַס וְשָׁלוֹם, (ט) צָרִיךְ לְגַלּוֹת לוֹ, וְעַל זֶה נֶאֶמְרוּ סְמוּכִין: לֹא תֵלֵךְ רָכִיל בְּעַמֶּיךָ, אֲבָל לֹא תַעֲמֹד עַל דַּם רֵעֶךָ. And there is yet another instance in which he must reveal it to him. If it is heard about the groom that there is apikorsuth [heresy] in him, G–d forbid, it must be revealed to him. And about this it is stated in juxtaposition (Vayikra 19:16): "You shall not go talebearing among your people," but "Do not stand [idly] by the blood of your friend."
אֲבָל אִם הַחִסָרוֹן הוּא מִצַּד מִעוּט חָכְמַת הַתּוֹרָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ, אֵין לְגַלּוֹת לוֹ, דְּאִיהוּ דְּאַפְסִיד אֲנַפְשֵׁה {הפסיד את עצמו}, דְּהָיָה לוֹ לְהוֹלִיכוֹ אֵצֶּל בַּעֲלֵי תּוֹרָה, שֶׁיְּנַסוּ אֶת כֹּחַ חָכְמָתוֹ וִידִיעָתוֹ, עַד הֵיכָן מַּגַּעַת, (וְאִם עָשָׂה כֵן, הֵם צְרִיכִים לוֹמַר הָאֱמֶת, כִּי מִשְּׁנֵי הַצְּדָדִים (י) נִתְרַצּוּ בַּדָּבָר לְכַתְּחִלָּה), וּמִדְּלֹא עָשָׂה כֵן נִתְרַצָּה בַּדָּבָר. But if the defect is in respect to the little Torah wisdom that he possesses, this is not to be revealed to him. For he [the prospective father-in-law] "caused his own loss." For he should have taken him to men of Torah to test him in the strength of his wisdom and his knowledge (and if he did this, they [the testers] must tell the truth, for both parties had agreed upon this in the beginning), and, not having done so [it is understood that] he has acquiesced in the matter.
(וּלְבַד כָּל אֵלֶּה, מִי שֶׁיִּרְצֶה לְהַתִּיר זֶה, מֵחֲמַת שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִרְאוֹת בְּאוֹנָאַת חֲבֵרוֹ, שֶׁהַשַּׁדְכָנִים מְרַמִּים אֶת הַמְחֻתָּן, צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּשַׁעֵר מִתְּחִלָּה, כִּי מָעוֹת הַנְּדוּנְיָא וְהַסְפָּקַת הַמְּזוֹנוֹת וּלְבִישַׁת הַבְּגָדִים, שֶׁהַמְחֻתָּן מַבְטִיחַ, הוּא דָּבָר אֲמִתִּי שֶׁלֹּא יְכַזֵּב בּוֹ, דְּבִסְתָם אֵין לְמַהֵר וּלְהַתִּיר דָּבָר זֶה, כִּי עֵינֵינוּ רוֹאוֹת, כִּי הַרְבֵּה מֵהֶם אֵין מְקַיְּמִים, וְאִם כֵּן תּוּ לֹא שַׁיָּךְ בּוֹ אוֹנָאָה, כִּי כְּמוֹ שֶׁהֶחָתָן מְרַמֶּה לְהַמְחֻתָּן, כֵּן הַמְחִתָּן מְרַמֵּהוּ, וְיָצָא זֶה בָּזֶה. וּלְבַד כָּל זֶה צָרִיךְ גַּם כֵּן בָּזֶה כָּל הַפְּרָטִים הַכְּתוּבִים לְמַעְלָה בִּכְלָל ט' סָעִיף ב'). (Aside from all this, one who would want to permit this [revelation] because he cannot look on at his friend being cheated (the shadchanim deceiving the [prospective] father-in- law) must assure himself first that the amount of the dowry and the food and clothing allotment agreed to by the father-in-law is a true commitment and he will not deceive. For, in general, one should not hasten to permit this. For our eyes see that many of them do not honor their commitments, and if so, the phenomenon of "cheating" does not apply here. For just as the groom [to be] deceives the father-in-law [to be], so does the father-in-law deceive him, and they end off "equals." And, aside from all this, here, too, all of the conditions mentioned in Principle IX, section 2 must be satisfied.)