וְאִם כְּבָר נִשְׁתַּדֵּךְ עִמּוֹ, וְהוּא מַכִּיר לְפִי הָעִנְיָן, שֶׁהַמְחֻתָּן יְרַמֶּה אֶת הֶחָתָן בְּעִנְיַן הַנָּדָן אוֹ הַמְּזוֹנוֹת. תָּלוּי בָּזֶה, (יג) אִם הוּא רוֹאֶה, שֶׁדְּבָרָיו לֹא יִתְקַבְּלוּ בְּאָזְנֵי הֶחָתָן, רַק לְעִנְיַן לָחוּשׁ לְבַד, דְּהַיְנוּ, שֶׁיִּרְאֶה לְהִתְיַעֵץ נֶגֶד הַמְחֻתָּן שֶׁלֹּא יוּכַל לְרַמּוֹת, אוֹ שֶׁהוּא יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהֶחָתָן לֹא יַעֲשֶׂה מֵעַצְּמוֹ שׁוּם דָּבָר, כִּי אִם עַל פִּי בֵּית דִּין, מתָּר לְגַלּוֹת לוֹ, אַךְ צָרִיךְ לִזָּהֵר, שֶׁלֹּא יֶחְסַר שׁוּם פְּרָט מֵהַפְּרָטִים הַמְבֹאָרִים לְעֵיל בִּכְלָל ט' סָעִיף ב', גַּם נִרְאֶה דְּצָרִיךְ לָזֶה הַפְּרָט הַג' הַנַּל, דְּהַיְנוּ, שֶׁיֵּדַע שֶׁמִּצַּד הֶחָתָן, אֵין בּוֹ רְמִיָּה. אֲבָל אִם הוּא רוֹאֶה, שֶׁדְּבָרָיו יִתְקַבְּלוּ בְּאָזְנֵי הֶחָתָן, וִיבַטֵּל הַשִּׁדּוּךְ מֵעַצְמוֹ עֲבוּר זֶה בְּלִי שׁוּם טַעֲנָה וּמַעֲנְה, (יד) אָסוּר לְגַלּוֹת לוֹ, דְּאֵינוֹ מָצוּי שֶׁיִּתְקַבְּצוּ כָּל הַפְּרָטִים, וְעַיֵּן בִּבְאֵר מַיִם חַיִּים. And if the groom has already made the shidduch and he [the potential revealer] knows that the father-in-law will deceive the groom in the matter of the dowry or the food allotment, [the din] depends on this: If he sees that his words will be accepted by the groom only to the extent of suspicion alone. That is, that he will seek counsel against the father-in- law so as not to be deceived by him. Or if he knows that the groom will do nothing by himself but only with beth-din, it is permitted to reveal it to him. But he must take care that none of the conditions explained above in Principle IX, section 2 are lacking. It would also seem that he must also satisfy clause c above. That is, he must know that on the groom's part there is no deception. But if he sees that his words will be accepted by the groom and that because of this he will peremptorily annul the shidduch by himself, it is forbidden to reveal it to him; for it is not common for all the needed conditions to coincide. (See the Be'er Mayim Chayim.)