Page 47 - 20818_park-c_efi

the young man, but not necessarily during their first meeting, when the children and the maidservants in order to accustom them to buy #
it is not yet known whether or not he is interested in the match. In from him. He can charge less than the market price in order to attract
fact, she is forbidden to reveal her sin to him at that point. Once it is the passers-by and the merchants in the market cannot stop him, and
clear that he wants to marry her, the girl should tell him that she once, it is not considered as deception.” As explained in Maaseh Roke’ach,
when she was young and frivolous, sinned. She should explain that in this is not considered deception because anyone can do the same. We
her immaturity, she could not withstand the pressures of seduction can deduce that if not for the fact that anyone can do the same, it
and sweet talk, and that she immediately regretted what she did. She would be viewed as deception. So, it is clear that if the girl divulges
should explain herself so the young man understands that he does her attempted suicide to her prospective groom, Hashem will send
not need to worry that after their marriage, something similar will her a suitable mate easily.
happen, because she will be devoted to her husband.


1 SuMMaRy and Conclusions

To question 1: Since the physicians say that there is an overwhelming Is One Obligated to Reveal a One-Time
chance that she will not repeat her act, there is room to say that she is Transgression?
not obligated to tell him about her past. This is especially so accord- 20818_efi-ab - 20818_park-C_efi-ab | 2 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:46:23 | SR:-- | Magenta #20818_efi-ab - 20818_park-C_efi-ab | 2 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:46:23 | SR:-- | Yellow 20818_efi-ab - 20818_park-C_efi-ab | 2 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:46:23 | SR:--
ing to the Kehillos Yaakov, who explains that if a defect is not serious 1 Question
enough to warrant a divorce after marriage, one is not obligated to
talk about it beforehand. My father-in-law, however, ruled that she is If a store-owner is about to hire a worker, and someone knows that
obligated to reveal her past (and that this will increase her chances of the worker once stole, is he obligated to tell the storeowner?
being cured, as her husband will stand by her side.) Similarly, if a match is suggested for someone’s daughter, and his
To question 2: She must reveal her past, as my father-in-law ruled. friend knows that the potential groom committed a terrible sin during
To question 3: The case is even more stringent and one must reveal his youth, is he obligated to reveal it?
it.
To question 4: One does not have to reveal this, because the family 1 AnsweR
is not automatically presumed to have that illness.
To question 5: If the physicians determine that after an interval of The Chafetz Chaim (Hilchos Rechilus, Principle 9, Be’er Mayim Chaim
four years there is no concern that the epilepsy will return, and the #9) writes that if a person wants to hire a manservant, and someone
danger is not significantly greater than for any other person (there is else once saw the potential worker stealing, he must tell the would-be
not even a 5% chance) it is possible that one need not reveal it. This employee what he saw, but only under the following conditions:
requires further study. 1. He should not immediately conclude that the man is a thief.
Perhaps he received permission, or did something which is a
common mistake, such as a secretary taking stamps from his
employer without permission.

2. He should not exaggerate the sin.

36 1 Medical-HalacHic Responsa of Rav ZilbeRstein Revealing a bride's earlier attempt at suicide 2 33