HOLDING BACK INFORMATION ON SHIDDUCHIM

A young woman had some extra heart tissue which caused an irregular heartbeat due to the extra
electric activity. She had ablation surgery, and she is fine now. Do her parents have to disclose the
surgery to a prospective shidduch?
Another young woman is partially deaf in one ear. Must her parents disclose?
A third young lady has alternating esotropia – she can only see out of one eye at a time. She had
Strabismus surgery but it did not allow for the mental fusing together of her eyesight. Must this be
disclosed?
A young man was the product of an intermarriage – his father was a gentile. He is also an accomplished
Talmid Chochom. Must his situation be revealed?
If disclosure is halachically required, what is the time element? Should it be done before the first date?
Also, do they tell the Shadchan, the parents, or just the guy?

IS SHIDDUCHIM BETTER OR WORSE THAN SALES?
In regard to the sale of an item, the halacha is quite clear. All negative information must be disclosed
when selling an item if most people would consider it a possible deal-breaker (See Choshen Mishpat
232:3-7). Does the same hold true for shidduchim? In other words, is Shidduchim more stringent or less
stringent than the laws of Choshen Mishpat?

A DEBATE
The Steipler Gaon zt”l, father of Rav Chaim Kanievsky Shlita, in his Sefer Kehilas Yaakov on Yevamos
(Siman 44) writes that Shidduchim are different than sales of items. The sages were more lenient in
order to allow people who would ordinarily have a tougher time to get married. He cites a Gemorah in
Yevamos where Rabbi Yehudah advises someone to go to a different town where they do not know his
lineage and marry there. The Steipler does add that one should not rely on this halacha l’maaseh.
There are some complications with the proof that the Steipler cites, because both townspeople
erroneously believed that having a gentile father created a mamzeirus illegitimacy, when, in fact, it does
not.
Regardless, the Chsam Sofer cites this Gemorah (Responsa EH Vol. II #125) as a proof that one can
temporarily suppress information in order to help along that person to get married and fulfill the
Mitzvah of Pru u’rvu. The indication of the Kehilas Yaakov is that the information can be obscured even
longer – indefinitely.
However, not everyone is in agreement with this position.
Rav Malkiel Tanenbaum zt”l (1847-1910) author of the Divrei Malkiel (Volume III #90), holds a position
diametrically opposed to that of the Steipler. The Divrei Malkiel holds that even if the majority of people
would not care about the information – one must be concerned that the potential shidduch is from the
minority of people that would be concerned. This is markedly different than the halacha cited in
Choshen Mishpat chapter 232.

IF PEOPLE GENERALLY ASK
The Steipler has another qualification. He states that according to Tosfos (Chullin 94a “Inhu”) if it is an
issue that is generally inquired about – then there is no obligation to reveal. However, if it is something
that people do not generally inquire about then one would be obligated to reveal. Matter relating to
yichus (genealogy) are generally looked into. It would seem that health issues are also inquired of rather
regularly.

SO WHO DO WE RULE LIKE?
Clearly, in regard to shidduchim, there are matters that should definitely be revealed.
Rav Moshe Feinstein zt’l writes (Igros Moshe E.H. IV 73:2) that a 25-year-old young man who has Marfan
Syndrome is obligated to reveal it to his future spouse. (Marfan Syndrome is a genetic disorder of
connective tissue, where those who have the syndrome tend to be tall, and thin, with long arms, legs,
fingers and toes. They typically have flexible joints and scoliosis. The most serious complications involve
the heart and aorta with an increased risk of mitral valve prolapse and aortic aneurysm. Other
commonly affected areas include the lungs, eyes, bones, and the covering of the spinal cord.)
Rav Shmuel Vosner (Sheivet HaLevi Volume VI #205) indicates the same position in a responsum
concerning a single girl suffering from a dermatological disorder where she had lost all her hair and
wears a sheitel.
Interestingly enough, Rav Waldenberg, the Tzitz Eliezer (Vol. XIII #81:2), writes that a doctor has an
obligation to reveal information that will do damage to another party, notwithstanding issues of legal
and professional obligations of confidentiality.
Rav Elyashiv (Kovetz Teshuvos Vol. I #159) rules in one case that even if the information of improper pre-
marital activity would never be known otherwise, there is still an obligation to reveal it. In regard to
other matters, however, the debate between the Divrei Malkiel and the Steipler has not been fully
resolved. Anyone with this question must consult with his own Posaik or qualified Rav.
It is this author’s experience, however, that it is always a good idea to be as forthcoming as possible, and
rather have bitachon that one’s bashert will eventually come along.

REREADING THE GEMORAH IN YEVAMOS
How would the Poskim who rule that one must inform understand the Gemorah in Yevamos cited by the
Steipler Gaon? Perhaps the advice given was to suppress the information to the family members of the
prospective bride, but actually to inform the bride herself. Indeed, one contemporary Posaik actually
provides such a reading of the Gemorah.

GOOD ADVICE OR OBLIGATION?
Dayan Yitzchak Weiss, zt’l, the rav of the Eida Chareidis in Yerushalayim, in his Minchas Yitzchak (7:93)
cites the Sefer Chassidim (#507) regarding an issue having to do with safrus. The Sefer Chassidim writes
that a person needing to get married should not cover up a serious malady among his household that, if
it were to be revealed, would cause the other party to not marry them. Dayan Weiss cites this Sefer
Chasidim as authoritative, and it would seem that this is an obligation—not merely good advice.

SOURCE OF OBLIGATION
From where, then would this obligation stem? There may actually be four or more mitzvos involved
here:

1. Ve’ahavta lerei’acha kamocha. Love thy neighbor as thyself;
2. Lo sa’amod al dam rei’acha. Do not stand idly by thy brother’s blood;
3. Hashavas aveidah. Returning a lost item to its owner. This can be found in the Pischei Teshuvah in
   Orech Chaim (Chapter 156);
4. Lo sonu ish es amiso (Vayikra 25:17) – one shall not aggrieve his fellow, and you shall fear your G-d,
   for I am Hashem your G-d.” See the Gemorah in Bava Metziah 58b and also Sefer Hamitzvos 251 and
   Sefer Hachinuch 338. The application here to shidduchim is mentioned in the responsa of Rabbi
   Feinstein zt”l.

This, of course, is a biblical imperative. Indeed, Rav Waldenberg (Tzitz Eliezer Vol. XVI #4:1) points out
that there is a strong obligation to warn a woman about a man who is dating her and planning not to
reveal information. The Tzitz Eliezer indicates that the obligation exists even if it is not a life-threatening
illness. The obligation exists on anyone who is aware of it – not just the person who is asked.

NOT OVER-REACTING
However, we must keep something very important in mind. We must realize that people tend to
overreact when they hear information that is completely a non-issue. Example: a young man had a
contusion in his right ileus when he was in ninth grade. This can cause a potential shidduch to be scared
off. However, this actually translates to a bruise on his thigh.
The point is that some people can over-react to anything. That being the true, a good case can be made
to suppress harmless and inconsequential information.

CONDITIONS
Rav Yitzchok Steinberg, in the sefer Bracha L’Avraham (p.345), points out that when one does reveal this
information, one must adhere to all of the five conditions set forth in Sefer Chofetz Chaim (Volume II
Klal 9:2). They are: 1] Not to decide that it is necessarily negative per se 2] not to exaggerate the matter
at all 3] to only have positive intentions (l’to’eles) and not through hate 4] if the positive can be
accomplished without having to convey the information to avoid conveying it, and 5] that the person
not suffer an actual loss as a consequence but only the removal of a gain.

TIMING
When information must be revealed, the Poskim have ruled that it need not be disclosed before the first
date or even after the first date. Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l (Igros Moshe OC Vol. IV #118) rules that a certain type of negative information need not be revealed on the first date, and only must be revealed
when he has shown indications that he wishes to marry her.
Other Poskim have stated that one can withhold the information until the third or the fourth date,
depending upon how far things have progressed. As discussed above, however, each person should
consult with his or her own Posaik or Rav. Articles and books should not be relied upon for such
sensitive matters.

NOT TELLING THE SHADCHAN
Rav Dovid Cohen Shlita once told this author that where the situation warrants that sensitive or negative
information be disclosed – it should never be disclosed to the Shadchan. Once the Shadchan knows –
the information gets out quickly and a shidduch is much more difficult, near impossible, to be made.

OUR FIRST FOUR QUESTIONS
Now let’s get back to our first four questions. The question about the young woman who was deaf in
one ear was posed to Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt”l. He responded that it need not be disclosed,
and he added that he himself was deaf in one ear and only became aware of it several years after he got
married. The alternating esotropia would have the same status. As far as the heart ablation, Poskim in
Eretz Yisroel [Rav Vosner zt”l and Rav Nissin Karelitz zt”l] ruled that the information does not need to be
disclosed if the young lady is not taking medication. If medication is being taken, however, it needs to be
revealed. Regarding the young man whose father was a gentile, this should be revealed as well, but after
the third or fourth date.